Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Aberdeen Harbour (to be proceeded with under Section 7 of the Act), presented by Mr. John Maclay; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 15.]

CLYDE NAVIGATION ORDER CONFIRMATION

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Clyde Navigation (to be proceeded with under Section 7 of the Act), presented by Mr. John Maclay; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 16.]

FORTH ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the Forth Road Bridge (to be proceeded with under Section 7 of the Act), presented by Mr. John Maclay; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 17.]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

N.A.T.O. (Small Arms Ammunition and Tanks)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Defence what progress has been made in standardising small arms ammunition in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Watkinson): All the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries have agreed to adopt the standard N.A.T.O. 7·62 mm. round for small arms ammunition.

Mr. Hall: Can my right hon. Friend say when this decision is likely to be fully implemented?

Mr. Watkinson: It is practically fully implemented in the British Forces. I cannot speak for other forces, but I understand that very good progress has been made in N.A.T.O.

Mr. Paget: asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the prospects of other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation equipping their forces with British tanks.

Mr. Harold Watkinson: N.A.T.O. discussions on future tank requirements are in progress, but it is too early to forecast whether any other N.A.T.O. country will decide to equip its forces with British tanks. The United States has, however, decided to adopt the British 105 mm. tank gun. At the request of the Minister of Defence of the Federal German Republic, production capacity is also being reserved to meet a German requirement for this gun.

Mr. Paget: First, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I did not ask him about guns? I asked him about tanks. Secondly, is he aware that in fact every single one of our N.A.T.O. allies regards the tank which we insist on as being something like 10 tons too heavy? Why do we insist on going against the opinion of every one of our allies?

Mr. Watkinson: I mentioned the gun because at least it is the business end of the tank, but apart from that, the general


tank philosophy in N.A.T.O. at the moment says that what is required are two types of tanks, a very light, fast tank and a heavier cruiser tank. Discussions are still going on between the other N.A.T.O. nations and ourselves to see whether we can agree our philosophy and if we can decide that there are two clear types which are needed.

Mr. Steele: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how long these discussions have been going on? Is it not the case that our N.A.T.O. allies in Europe have been trying to get the British Government to adopt a particular 40-ton tank for many years but that Britain has consistently refused and is not prepared to do so?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not think that is so at all. The facts are that prototype tanks are being produced by several countries, including our own. Till we can have comparative trials of these we shall not come to a final conclusion.

Major-Generals (Pensions and Grants)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Defence what are the terminal grant and pension of a major-general under 60 years old, retiring on the 1950 code, and on the 1960 code, respectively.

Mr. Watkinson: A major-general who has retired under the 1950 code, that is, before 1st January, 1956, after a full career, received retired pay of £1,200 a year and a terminal grant of £1,000. A major-general retiring today under the 1960 code after 34 years' service would receive retired pay of £1,850 and a terminal grant of £5,550.

Mr. Ridley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is it not true that the same sort of comparison exists for all ranks? Can he say why these apparently identical people should receive very different treatment with regard to their pension?

Mr. Watkinson: Because of the general principle that these increases are never made retrospective. That is a very longstanding principle.

Army (Strength)

Mr. B. Harrison: asked the Minister of Defence whether he now intends to reduce the number of units in the British

Army; and what commitments he intends relinquishing.

Mr. Wade: asked the Minister of Defence what commitments overseas will have to be curtailed, or abandoned, as a consequence of the failure to achieve or maintain a total manpower in the Forces in excess of 165,000.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Defence what oversea commitments he intends to abandon, in view of the fact that the Regular Army will not exceed 165,000 all ranks.

Mr. Watkinson: No further reductions in the number of Army units is intended. As regards commitments, the 165,000 force has been planned to meet those foreseen after 1962, and I see no reason to believe that it will not do so.

Mr. Harrison: Does my right hon. Friend agree that about 182,000 troops will be necessary to fill up the Army as outlined in the White Paper in July 1957, when there were approximately 60 battalions and ancillary troops?

Mr. Watkinson: The guiding White Paper in this matter is the 1959 one, which set out quite clearly the position and said that the minimum numbers required were 165,000. It said that that was the floor, but it was hoped—and I am still confident about it—that we could rise above that, to a ceiling of around 182,000.

Mr. Wade: If the figure falls to 165,000, is the Minister prepared to give an assurance that Britain can nevertheless maintain her commitments both in Europe and elsewhere overseas?

Mr. Watkinson: In my original Answer, which the hon. Member may not have heard, I said that this force was planned to meet commitments as foreseen after 1962. We have to remember that by then civilianisation will have been completed and certain overseas commitments may have changed.

Mr. Strachey: If the Minister now foresees a force of 180,000, and is still hoping for it, what did he mean on 4th November when, at Devizes, he said:
While the Army might prefer 170,000 or 180,000, a total of 165,000 will be sufficient to meet our world commitments and we shall have to manage."?

Mr. Watkinson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for asking that question. In fact, I was answering a question at Devizes. The questioner quite properly asked whether present recruiting figures would not force a return to National Service. I said, "No", because the minimum target of 165,000 was still clearly in sight, and if we had to we would manage it. But I made it quite plain that 170,000 or 180,000 was still the figure that the Army would like and, as I have said this afternoon, it is one that I hope it will obtain.

Mr. Lipton: Is it not quite irresponsible on the part of the Minister to expect a diminishing number of men to shoulder the same burden of foreseen commitments and, possibly, some commitments which we cannot at the moment foresee? The right hon. Gentleman's policy makes sense only if the major rôle of the Army is to be potato picking, or he is going to sell some of our commitments to Detroit.

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Member did not listen to my original Answer. This is not a new thing. It was clearly foreshadowed in the 1957 White Paper, and reaffirmed in the 1959 White Paper, that there is no change in the general plan. As I have said, a most careful and detailed examination took place before this figure was set as being a realistic floor on which the Army, if it had to, could meet its commitments.

Mr. John Hall: If the strength of an all-Regular Army does not exceed 165,000, is the Minister quite sure that he will be able to maintain the existing commitments, including the commitment of 55,000 to the N.A.T.O. forces, without either reducing the number of units or, alternatively, reducing the strength of units for operational efficiency?

Mr. Watkinson: That is quite a different matter. I think it arises on a later Question.

Mr. G. Brown: Does it not arise out of the Minister's previous answer? He said that, in deciding that this number was enough, account had been taken of the fact that civilianisation would have gone further and that commitments after 1962 might change. May we, therefore, press the right hon. Gentleman to tell us which commitments he has assumed will change and which commitments he assumes we will be giving up?

Mr. Watkinson: I will give the right hon. Gentleman one example which has already taken place, and that is Cyprus.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that an expert committee was set up by the War Office, under the supervision of Lieutenant-General Hull, which reported that the minimum requirement for the Army should be 200,000 men? How does that square with the figure of 165,000?

Mr. Watkinson: I have no doubt that at various times various committees have set various figures. I have to deal with the figure that is approved and recommended to me by my military advisers, and one which has been in front of this House for something over three years.

Mr. B. Harrison: asked the Minister of Defence what considerations he took into account in arriving at his estimate of an Army of 165,000; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Watkinson: An all-Regular Army of 165,000 has been an integral part of our defence policy since 1957. I am satisfied that it will meet our needs.

Mr. Harrison: Does that mean that the regiments and so on mentioned in the White Paper will be kept up to full operational strength with an Army of only 165,000?

Mr. Watkinson: Obviously the difference in the bracket between 165,000 and 180,000, or thereabouts, represents at the lower figure a certain amount of under-strength and at the upper figure a little elbow room that we shall need.

Mr. Strachey: If the Minister is now saying that he prefers 180,000, will he explain what the Leader of the House meant on Monday last when he answered a Question by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who asked whether it is the Government's policy
that the Army must manage to meet our world commitments on a strength of 160,000 or below.
The Leader of the House answered:
Yes, Sir."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1960; Vol. 630, c. 31.]
That appears to be a direct contradiction of what the Minister of Defence has told us today.

Mr. Watkinson: The fact is that the number of units remains the same, whether we have the 165,000 or the 180,000 figure. It does not alter the number of units at all. So that we have this quite plain, what I said was that the Army can fulfil its commitments on the floor figure of 165,000. I shall be very pleased if it can get the upper figure. What I said was that I remained confident that it would achieve it.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Defence if he will give an assurance that whatever recruiting figures to the Regular Army are now, or turn out to be at the time when compulsory military service ends, no formation will be called upon to carry out rôles which, unless specified minimum establishments are fully meet, would be incapable of effective achievement.

Mr. Watkinson: I can assure my hon. Friend that it is no part of our plans to allocate rôles to formations which are incapable of carrying them out, whether for manpower or any other reasons.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Whilst appreciating that there must be a total number of men available at one time or another, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not agree that the real significance of the future Regular Army is going to be the number of effective formations and whether those formations are each fully up to strength? Can we have an assurance that, so far as the brigade group is concerned, it is not going to have a battalion extracted and brought back into strategic reserve and then be expected to carry out the rôle overseas without that battalion?

Mr. Watkinson: In general, I think I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, because a brigade group must act as a proper functioning unit and it cannot do that if it has a detached battalion.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Minister of Defence what is the size of the Army now aimed at by Her Majesty's Government; whether he is satisfied that this number will be achieved by 1963; and whether recruiting is up to schedule.

Mr. Watkinson: The aim is an all-Regular Army with a minimum strength of 165,000. We are making steady progress

in the build-up of the regular strength, and I am confident that we shall have the numbers we need by 1963.

Mr. Grimond: First, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, all this talk about extra inducements in recruiting is unnecessary. Secondly, is he satisfied that if we achieve this strength we shall have an Army which can perform its normal liabilities with conventional weapons and will not become more and more dependent on tactical nuclear weapons?

Mr. Watkinson: If we were to have an Army which did not rely in any sense on nuclear weapons of any kind, it would certainly have to be a very much larger Army than this.
On the general recruiting position, all that we need is something under 2 per cent. of the working population to man up all the Forces. I do not mind how much the House goes for me—I am here for that—but I hope that hon. Members will not take the temperature of recruitment too often and will give a little encouragement to those units in the Army which are doing a magnificent job.

Mr. G. Brown: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman need worry about that. He said that he thought that we would reach the figure of 165,000 in 1963. On Monday, in answer to the question whether it would be reached by 1st January, the Leader of the House said, "Yes, Sir" Does the Minister support that statement?

Mr. Watkinson: I quite accept that the right hon. Gentleman is as keen as I am to get recruitment going. I am not going to be pinned down to particular dates in particular years which are two years away. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have not finished yet. My right hon. Friend was perfectly correct in saying that all our plans were made on the basis that we shall reach that target on 1st January.

Mr. Brown: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has completely repudiated what his right hon. Friend said. In that case, I give notice that this matter will certainly have to be raised again. It cannot be left like that.

Mr. Speaker: The traditional formula seems to be becoming a little expanded.

Mr. Strachey: asked the Minister of Defence whether it is now Government policy to restrict the size of the Army to 165,000.

Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. As was announced in the Defence White Paper for 1959 the War Office remains free to recruit up to a ceiling of about 180,000.

Mr. Strachey: Will the Minister of Defence consult the Leader of the House and ask his right hon. Friend what he meant when he confirmed the statement that the Army must manage to meet our world commitments on a strength of 165,000 or below? Does not this represent a grave division of opinion on the Government Front Bench—in this case, above the Gangway?

Mr. Watkinson: This is a serious issue. My right hon. Friend was saying exactly what I said at Devizes, and it was this. If we have to manage on 165,000, we can do so. That is a very important point. If we can get more, we need them to give us rather more elbow room, a balance that would help to reinforce units overseas and, generally, a sensible margin that would give the Army a little to play with. I wish to say again, however, as I said myself, that if we have to manage on 165,000 we can do so.

Mr. Strachey: The Minister surely must have noticed that that was not what the Leader of the House said. He said, not that we might or could manage on this figure, but that we must manage on 165,000 or below. The discrepancy is just as bad as ever, however much the Minister goes on trying to explain it away.

Mr. Speaker: There is no question involved in that. It is all assertion. Mr. Strachey.

Mr. Brown: If we can manage on 165,000—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the next Question. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have heard me.

Germany (Nuclear Weapons)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Defence what agreements have been reached with the West German Federal Government, either through N.A.T.O. or bilaterally, for the provision of tactical atomic and nuclear weapons.

Mr. Watkinson: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on 26th October, 1960.

Mr. Shinwell: Why should hon. Members be kept in the dark about the facilities provided for the West German Federal Government in respect of tactical atomic and nuclear weapons? Ought we not to know what the position is in West Germany? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that West Germany is becoming the predominant military power in Europe outside Soviet Russia? Does that not constitute a menace to this country and to the world at large?

Mr. Watkinson: The House was not kept in the dark. My right hon. Friend said then, and it has been said a good many times before, that tactical nuclear weapons are only in Germany in fulfilment of N.A.T.O. requirements and obligations; those weapons come under strict N.A.T.O. control, as I made plain in the House when we had a debate a little while ago, and the warheads come under American custody.

Mr. Brockway: Whilst the right hon. Gentleman gave certain particulars in a Written Answer to a Question by me, may I ask him whether he is aware of the very great concern that many of us feel about any nuclear arming of Western Germany, even under the auspices of N.A.T.O.?

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman has his own views on this, and so have a great number of other people. I merely have to state the facts. The facts are that Germany only acts in this matter under N.A.T.O. requirements, which she is required to fulfil. The safeguards are that these weapons remain under N.A.T.O. control, and, indeed, more closely than that, under the direct control of Saceur himself. The warheads remain under direct United States control.

Kenya (Nuclear Weapons)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Minister of Defence whether nuclear weapons and warheads are now stocked at the military bases in Kenya.

Mr. Watkinson: As the hon. Member knows, it is the practice not to confirm


or deny the presence of nuclear weapons at particular sites.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Minister aware that that reply, which does not deny a much-quoted report which appeared in the Express, will be received with some dismay in Kenya, in view of the fact that the people of Kenya want to be assured that they are being consulted in this matter of life and death? Wild he ensure that before any decision is made about the stocking of nuclear weapons in Kenya there will be the fullest possible consultation with representatives of local opinion?

Mr. Watkinson: I must make plain what I said, and that is that it is a longstanding practice in this House not to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Paget: Whether the right hon. Gentleman confirms or denies this, will he tell us that he is taking every step to distribute our deterrent as widely as possible? Is he aware that for the last ten years I have urged that this island is an unsuitable base for the deterrent and that it should be dispersed throughout the Commonwealth?

Mr. Watkinson: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question is quite happily accommodated with the previous answer I gave.

Mr. Stonehouse: On a point of order. In view of the Minister's failure to answer the second part of my supplementary and to give an assurance on the question of consultation——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have repeatedly asked hon. Members to confine themselves to the traditional formula.

Mr. Stonehouse: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise this question on the Adjournment.

Polaris Type Submarines

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the establishment of the Clyde base for United States Polaris submarines, he will authorise the immediate laying down, or acquisition, of a submarine of this type for the Royal Navy, so that the earliest opportunity can be taken to gain experience of them in co-operation with the United States Navy.

Mr. Watkinson: The Royal Navy will obtain experience of nuclear-propelled submarines from "Dreadnought" and from the second submarine of this type which has been ordered. The Government's plans for the British contribution to the Western nuclear deterrent are based mainly on the V-bombers for the period of the 1960s. There is no need to decide at present whether we shall require a Polaris-type submarine.

Mr. Digby: Is there not increasing evidence that this is both a very efficient way of delivering the deterrent—which we hope will never be delivered—and also the least subject to surprise attack? Should not an island nation like ours give high priority to a naval development of this importance?

Mr. Watkinson: In general, I do not disagree with anything my hon. Friend has said. This is a very good weapon for the very reason that it preserves the right of retaliation; but at the same time the essential basis on which we hope to stop war starting—that is the task to which we are devoted—is that one must have a very great diversity in the means of delivering nuclear weapons. We must play our part in adding to that diversity.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister's estimate for this vessel was between £50 million and £60 million, about twice the cost of the Cunarder and approximately the cost of more than 20,000 houses in the west of Scotland? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider seriously the fact that this country needs houses before a Polaris submarine?

Mr. Watkinson: I confirm that this is a very expensive weapon system.

Mr. G. Brown: In view of the enthusiasm which the Prime Minister showed for this weapon as a means of delivering the deterrent, is the Minister of Defence now saying that it was the financial cost which led us to decide that the only two atomic submarines we are building should be so built that they could not carry it?

Mr. Watkinson: Not at all. The first thing to do is to remember that the answer to the submarine menace in general, which, after all, is of considerable concern to our country as an island,


faced with the immense number of Russian submarines now available, is this kind of nuclear hunter-killer submarine. These submarines, therefore, are rightly built as part of our main antisubmarine defences, and as such they have a vital rôle to play.

Polaris Submarine Base

Mr. Warbey: asked the Minister of Defence if he will lay on the Table of the House an official paper setting out the terms of the agreement between the British and United States Governments on the establishment of Polaris submarine bases in British waters.

Mr. Watkinson: I would refer the hon. Member to replies by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 8th November.

Mr. Warbey: As the Minister has admitted in a Written Answer to me that the submarine tender will be able to store nuclear missiles with warheads without any limit and that this may mean as much as 150 million tons of nuclear blast power concentrated in one spot at any one time, is he really saying that the Government are not prepared to lay the agreement for establishing a nuclear powder magazine in the Clyde before the House for debate and approval or disapproval?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's expansion of the Written Answer I gave him. I can only say that this matter has been fully debated and discussed in the House, and I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Defence what consultations the United States Government have had with the United Kingdom Government about the construction of a Polaris submarine base or bases in Great Britain, in addition to the Holy Loch project.

Mr. Watkinson: None, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that there is no truth in the rumour and statements which have been conveyed to me that there have been consultations on the possibility of constructing a site at Portland near Weymouth in the south of England?

Mr. Watkinson: The answer to that, if I may say so to the right hon. Gentleman, is that, of course, before Holy Loch was finally selected a great many possible sites were examined. For all I know, Portland was among them.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that this is to be the only site?

Mr. Watkinson: Certainly; at present.

Mr. Willis: asked the Minister of Defence if he will give the reasons for the selection of the Holy Loch as the base for the Polaris submarines.

Mr. Steele: asked the Minister of Defence what are the reasons for selecting the Holy Loch as the base for the United States submarines carrying the Polaris missiles.

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Defence whether alternative sites for the Polaris submarine base were offered to the United States for their consideration; and what were the factors which determined the siting now agreed on.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Defence how many Scottish lochs were considered for the Polaris base, before deciding on the Holy Loch.

Mr. Watkinson: The choice of a site for these facilities depended upon a number of technical and other considerations. Other sites were considered, but Holy Loch was found to be the most suitable.

Mr. Willis: Does the Minister realise that that is a most unsatisfactory Answer and that it certainly will not satisfy the very many people who are concerned about establishing this site alongside the biggest concentration of population in Scotland? Can he not give some more definite and clear reasons why the place has to be here?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, I am only too pleased to give a few more reasons. It is a very good sheltered anchorage. It is already a submarine operating base for the Royal Navy. It gives very good access to deep water exercise areas. There are good communications. I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I did a moment ago to the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), that a great many


sites were most carefully examined throughout the whole country and that this site was the one which most nearly filled the very exacting requirements.

Mr. Steele: Is the Minister aware that the whole Clydeside area suffered very severely from bombing during the last war and that there has been a natural reaction of anxiety among the people of Clydeside about siting the base there? Were those fears and anxieties taken into account when the decision was made? If so, in view of the need to take the population with him in his desire to safeguard the freedom of our country, why was not it possible for some more isolated loch to be selected?

Mr. Watkinson: I quite understand that. I was there myself for a certain time and know only too well what the Clyde went through during the war. It is very natural that people should remember.
In a nuclear war—God forbid that it should ever happen—the fact that one area or another is chosen for this purpose in Scotland, the Midlands or anywhere else will not affect the complete devastation which would follow. That is why we must do everything in our power to stop a war starting. This new weapon system makes an immense contribution to that task. That is why I think we were entirely right and justified in coming to this decision.

Mr. Hamilton: Were other sites in Scotland, apart from the Holy Loch, considered? Can the Minister deny or confirm the rumour that one of the reasons why the Holy Loch was chosen was that the American families concerned wanted to be near a populated area, particularly a city? If that was one of the reasons, is it not scandalous that it should have swayed the issue one way or another?

Mr. Watkinson: I can confirm that several other lochs and harbours and areas in Scotland were very carefully examined. To my knowledge, they were all rejected on purely operational requirements.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister say who rejected them and whether the Americans or the Minister chose Holy Loch? Is he aware of the statement in today's news from Washington that this submarine has as much destructive

power as all the bombs dropped in the last war, and that there is and will be great anxiety in Scotland if the thing is put in any loch in Scotland?

Mr. Watkinson: Its great power of destruction is part of the deterrent which we hope will stop a war starting before we can achieve disarmament. On the general considerations, as I have said, the decision was taken jointly by the United States and British Navies, as far as I am aware, on purely technical considerations.

Mr. Strachey: Whilst appreciating the right hon. Gentleman's point that probably the siting of the base does not affect the question of devastation, which would be overall and widespread, does not he appreciate the importance of the psychological factor, which is appreciated in America? A great many American commentators appreciate that it was very unfortunate to locate this base where it would creat great feeling among the local population. Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider a more isolated site, even if it is less convenient?

Mr. Watkinson: All those things were considered. I want to make it plain that I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's first statement. This was a difficult decision to take, but I must say again that, in this balance of terror in which we have to live until we can get proper disarmament, we must see that an aggressor has not the slightest doubt of the retribution which will fall upon him. We are all in this thing together.

Captain Litchfield: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that anything which is likely to add to the operational effectiveness of the United States naval forces is also likely to add to our own security?

Mr. Watkinson: Certainly. I agree entirely.

Mr. G. Brown: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is not the point? If the base would be operationally as efficient at Scapa Flow or Loch Ewe, why choose a site on the Clyde which psychologically has an enormous effect and which. I should have thought, from the point of view of defence also has enormous effect? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why those two places which I have mentioned were rejected?

Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I thought that I had answered his point when I said that a very large number of possible anchorages were considered up and down the West Coast and were rejected on operational grounds. For example, the depot ship must be in absolutely still water for certain purposes connected with the loading and unloading of missiles.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the profoundly unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's answers, I give notice that I will raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Defence what consultations took place with the local authorities concerned before agreement was reached with the United States of America on the siting of the Polaris submarine base.

Mr. Watkinson: None, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that, in his speech a week last Friday, he said that there was no time for consultation and that if we were to fit in with the timetable we had to get on without consultation? I think that that was the gist of his remarks. Is be aware that, in a Written Answer in the House yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), the Prime Minister said that this matter was raised during the meeting at Camp David in March this year? In view of the fact that these discussions quite clearly have been going on for some months, is there any rhyme or reason why local authorities in the area should not have been consulted before the decision was taken?

Mr. Watkinson: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misquoted me. It was because there was not time. We made the announcement when we did because there was a considerable leak in the daily Press. On the question why prior consultation did not take place, I dealt with that in my speech. I said that until some agreement had been reached there could not be public consultation.

National Service Men (Pay)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Defence if he is aware of the widespread discontent among

National Service men over their pay; what steps he proposes to remedy this grievance; and if he will reduce their period of conscription.

Mr. Watkinson: I am sorry that the Government cannot in present circumstances contemplate an increase in the pay of National Service men. I can assure the hon. Member that the decision not to increase their pay at the time of the last pay review was only taken after the most careful consideration. National Service men who have civil commitments which continue on call-up are, of course, eligible for National Service Grants. I do not intend to reduce the period of conscription.

Mr. Allaun: Is it not utterly unfair that a conscript's basic rate is only 31s. 6d. a week as compared with 87s. 6d. a week for a Regular doing the same job alongside him? Should not the Minister relieve the hardship of those in the last batch to be caught in the net, sometimes only by a few days, by reducing the two-year period, particularly since the Forces are to be cut in any case?

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman is ignoring the fact that only comparatively recently the upper limit of the hardship grant was raised to £7 a week and to £9 in cases of special hardship, and that the cost of these grants during the coming financial year will approximate to £2 million.

Mobile Reserve

Mr. Grimond: asked the Minister of Defence whether he is satisfied that there is a sufficient mobile reserve to enable the country to discharge its commitments; and what study is being made of those commitments.

Mr. Watkinson: I am satisfied that our plans will provide us with an adequate mobile reserve. As to commitments, a review has recently been completed. This has taken into account, among other things, constitutional developments that have already taken place in our dependent territories and likely changes in our responsibilities in the future.

Mr. Grimond: Are we to have a statement on the results of this review? It seems puzzling to many of us that units which are notoriously far under strength


are now apparently expected to fulfil the same commitments as they would if they were up to strength.

Mr. Watkinson: I do not accept that for a moment.

Infra-red Techniques

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Defence what steps he is taking to satisfy himself that the Armed Forces are drawing adequate benefit from the lead possessed by the United Kingdom in the application of infra-red techniques for detection and tracking, and that there is satisfactory liaison between the departments concerned in this matter.

Mr. Watkinson: The Armed Forces are benefiting from the pioneer work done by the Royal Radar Establishment in this field. In particular, these techniques are being applied to air-to-air guided weapons for the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. We have the Firestreak missile in service which is the best weapon of its kind in service today. There is close contact between all the departments concerned. We also have full liaison with the United States and our two countries are deriving benefit from each other's work.

T.S.R.2 Aircraft

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of defence what defence rôle the T.S.R.2 aircraft is intended to fill.

Mr. Watkinson: The T.S.R.2 is intended, first, for tactical strike, including attack with nuclear weapons, and, second, for reconnaissance, including battlefield surveillance. It will also be possible to use it in the strategic rôle.

Mr. Hall: Can my right hon. Friend give us any idea when we are likely to see this aircraft in squadron use?

Mr. Watkinson: The firms concerned and the Ministry of Aviation set out a fairly clear programme of the progress of this weapon system, and I think that I am right in saying that the first aircraft will come forward for test and flying purposes about the mid-'sixties.

Mr. Mason: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what is the estimated cost of the development of the T.S.R.2 and how much would have been

saved if the Royal Air Force had accepted a modified version of the NA39?

Mr. Watkinson: The question of cost must be put down to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation. With regard to comparison with the NA39, these two aircraft were designed in different time scales and for quite different purposes.

Mr. G. Brown: The Minister has not answered his hon. Friend's supplementary question. Will he try again? By what date does he think that this aeroplane will be in squadron service? Does he think that it will be before 1970—in other words, before it is out of date?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, I do.

White Paper on Defence

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Defence when the next White Paper on Defence will be published.

Mr. Watkinson: Early next year.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very grave disquiet in well informed and responsible quarters over the appalling muddle in our defences? With so many confusing and contradictory statements by the Minister himself, should not the White Paper on Defence be issued much earlier? Perhaps he might even consider issuing a quarterly White Paper so that he can keep pace with all the wobblings in Government policy.

Mr. Watkinson: If I tried to keep pace with the wobblings of hon. Members below the Gangway, I should have to issue it once a week.

Mr. Shinwell: Before the White Paper on Defence is published, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Leader of the House in order to reconcile their differences?

Mr. Watkinson: The right hon. Gentleman must not try to plant on us the differences from which he suffers in his own party.

Mr. Kershaw: When my right hon. Friend publishes the White Paper, will he include in it some paragraphs dealing


with the possibility of recruiting manpower from the Commonwealth and other dependent territories on the lines at present followed in the Gurkha Brigades? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is ample manpower to be recruited from these spheres if sufficient originality and drive are devoted to the matter?

Mr. Watkinson: That is a very useful suggestion. I will certainly look into it very carefully.

Forces (Mobility)

Mr. Ross: asked the Minister of Defence what plans he has to make effective the mobility of the forces.

Mr. Watkinson: The forces already have a high degree of mobility. An example of this is that by the end of this year R.A.F. Transport Command will be able to fly 150 million passenger miles per month, nearly double the capacity before the Britannias were delivered. It will continue to be an essential feature of our planning to increase the mobility of all three Services.

Mr. Ross: Surely, the Minister realises that if we are to have a minimum size Army there will be greater need for mobility, not only in the transport of troops but for transporting heavy equipment? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me exactly what aircraft we have that will do this for our strategic needs, and in what numbers do we have this aircraft?

Mr. Watkinson: If the hon. Member wants further details, he must put down another Question. At the moment, however, the heavy carrier is the Beverley, with the Britannic to follow.

Mr. G. Brown: We hear about how many man miles a month. How many tank or heavy gun miles a month can we do at the moment?

Mr. Watkinson: I shall be happy to answer that question if the right hon. Gentleman puts it down.

Mr. Brown: The Question asks the Minister,
what plans he has to make effective the mobility of the forces.
It must be clear that the forces are mobile only if their equipment also is mobile. Is not the Minister prepared to

answer the Question concerning the mobility of our equipment? Sending the men by themselves is not much use.

Mr. Watkinson: I thought I told the right hon. Gentleman that I should be delighted to answer, but perhaps he will have the courtesy to put it on the Order Paper.

Mr. Brown: It is already there.

Army and Air Force (Aircraft)

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: asked the Minister of Defence whether he is satisfied with the weight limit division of responsibility between the Army and the Royal Air Force for aircraft operation, in view of the development of steep-take-off aircraft.

Mr. Watkinson: As my predecessor indicated in his reply given on 3rd June, 1959, the weight limit is not rigidly interpreted.

Mr. de Freitas: Is there not now grave danger that the weight limit having been set when conventional aircraft were being dealt with, however vaguely the definition is interpreted, the Army will be encouraged to rely on obsolete aircraft in spite of these new developments in order to keep safely on the side of the division?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not think so. That is why I do not want to make a rigid division. If we were to do so, it would encourage that tendency. I am anxious that the Army should have the right modern type of aircraft for its needs. I think we shall get it better if we do not make a rigid weight limit division.

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Defence what he is doing to improve the co-ordination of the requirements of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force for aircraft.

Mr. Watkinson: Machinery exists in the Ministry of Defence to ensure that when either Service is considering the need for a new type of aircraft of a kind which both use, the requirement is examined to see whether the needs of both Services can be met by a single basic type. In the case of some helicopters this has been achieved, and we are trying to apply the principle generally.

Mr. de Freitas: Is the Minister aware that there has been great difficulty in finding overseas buyers for the NA39 and that if it had been possible to co-ordinate the requirements of the two Services for this aircraft, we might well have had a profitable export trade in it to our N.A.T.O. allies?

Mr. Watkinson: I am not sure that those are the reasons why certain N.A.T.O. countries have decided that the NA39 does not meet their needs. It is a great pity that that is so, but I do not think that it has anything to do with the possible amalgamation of an R.A.F. and a naval type of aircraft.

B.A.O.R. (Strength)

Mr. Strachey: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will give an assurance that the British Army of the Rhine will not be further reduced in strength.

Mr. Paget: asked the Minister of Defence whether Her Majesty's Government propose to continue to maintain 55,000 troops in Germany.

Mr. Watkinson: I would remind the hon. Members of the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) on 13th April last. I then said that we would maintain the strength in the British Army of the Rhine at seven brigade groups as long as it seems necessary for us to do so. I have nothing to add to that Answer.

Mr. Strachey: Cannot the Minister go further than that? As we understand it, the present nominal 55,000 in the British Army of the Rhine is not maintained. Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that to fall below that figure, for whatever reason, would be a bad example to the whole of the N.A.T.O. allies and would prejudice the whole position of maintaining adequate conventional forces in Europe, which is of such enormous importance?

Mr. Watkinson: The full establishment—seven brigade groups plus all supporting forces—would be well over 55,000. Therefore, the position is, and will be, that during the period of Army reorganisation which is now taking place, it is inevitable that sometimes units will be under strength from time to time.

That is why we may not always hit exactly the 55,000.

Mr. Paget: When the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, after, as the right hon. Gentleman told us, elaborate inquiries, decided on the figure of 165,000, he was then basing it upon reducing the forces in Germany to 45,000. The right hon. Gentleman now assures us, and I am very glad to hear it, that at least 55,000, and almost certainly more, will be retained in Germany. What is the other commitment amounting to 10,000-plus which is to be cut?

Mr. Watkinson: The right hon. Gentleman must not misquote what I said. I said that the full establishment of the seven brigade groups with supporting arms, which we are hoping to keep in Germany as long as we think it necessary, would be over 55,000 men. I did not give a pledge that we would keep over 55,000 men there.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the number of men in a fighting force is by no means the only yardstick of its strength? For that reason, is it not foolish and unwise to enter into any precise commitments with regard to maintaining a particular number of men anywhere?

Mr. Watkinson: I think that hon. Members who have been to N.A.T.O. recently would be fair enough to say that when we said we would contribute this level of forces to N.A.T.O., we were regarded as making a generous contribution and playing our full part.

Land

Mr. Freeth: asked the Minister of Defence if he will set up a board of inquiry to investigate the present use of Service land and to see if it is possible to release requisitioned land more quickly and to a greater extent than at present planned.

Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir.

Mr. Freeth: Does my right hon. Friend not realise that there is considerable feeling in the country near to London that the Armed Forces are not getting rid of land which is urgently needed for building as fast as they might, that with the rundown in the


Army they are not accelerating their release of land, and that something from outside the Service Departments is needed to make them get a move on?

Mr. Watkinson: I have promised my hon. Friend that I would have another look at this matter, and I shall do so, but I do not think that it needs a special inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Atomic Materials

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will enter into negotiations for an extension of the revised Brussels Treaty, so as to cover the manufacture or sale of gas centrifuge units for extracting fissile uranium by West Germany.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): No, Sir.

Mr. Allaun: Does it not make a mockery of the Treaty to say they forbid nuclear weapons but not fissile material? Will not the Lord Privy Seal take immediate steps to prevent this breach? Otherwise will not cheap H-bombs spread not only to West Germany but to more and more nations, and get completely out of control?

Mr. Heath: Under the Brussels Treaty the German Federal Republic is permitted to produce atomic material for peaceful civilian purposes. In addition, under the Brussels Treaty there is an undertaking from the German Federal Republic that atomic weapons will not be manufactured within its territory. Together those two facts cover the situation.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a White Paper about this new process, so as to show its real significance both for warlike and for peaceful uses?

Mr. Heath: I will certainly look into that question. It is not in fact a new process. The idea has been known for some time. It is the first attempt to develop the process.

Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Swingler: asked the Lord Privy Seal, in view of the German generals' memorandum on nuclear weapons for

Germany, and the recent discovery by German scientists of the process known as gas centrifuge, if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the nuclear arming of Germany.

Mr. Heath: Germany's rearmament under the North Atlantic Treaty Organition is today a firm requirement of Western defence and has the full support of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Swingler: Would the right hon. Gentleman take note that this Question refers solely to the question of nuclear armaments? Is he aware that many people are disturbed about certain developments in Germany, namely, the revelations about the research into new and cheaper methods of producing atomic weapons and the German generals' demand for atomic weapons in Germany, and Dr. Adenauer's reported statement that the German army must possess the most modern atomic weapons? Has the Foreign Office taken note of those developments and what is the Government's attitude towards them?

Mr. Heath: The question of nuclear armaments for Germany is, of course, included in the wider subject which I have already mentioned. I have seen no evidence of German research into cheaper atomic weapons. If the hon. Gentleman has such evidence perhaps he will let me have it. As far as the German generals' memorandum is concerned, that, of course, had the approval of the political authorities. It was not merely a military memorandum, and it asked for nothing more than the existing situation under which Germany has atomic tactical weapons under N.A.T.O. under the command of the Supreme Commander, and with the arrangement that the nuclear warheads are under the control of the Americans.

Oral Answers to Questions — ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE

Mr. Wall: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement about the recent negotiations with the Icelandic Government over fishing limits.

Mr. Heath: Since my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) on 7th November, the talks with Icelandic officials which were to have been resumed in London on 14th November have been postponed at the


request of the Icelandic Government for about a fortnight. It is hoped to announce shortly a new date for their resumption.

Mr. Wall: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that since the end of World War II Iceland's fishery limits have increased from 3 to 4, 6, 12 miles? While we all wish him luck in the very difficult negotiations on this matter to be carried on, what really matters is to get a decision which will last.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Seeing that the negotiations have got so far and have been frustrated at the last moment, can the Lord Privy Seal state what questions are still in dispute?

Mr. Heath: The negotiations have not been frustrated. They are continuing, but there is a pause while both Governments consider the position which we have reached.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS

China

Mr. Swingler: asked the Lord Privy Seal why the United Kingdom delegate voted for continuing the moratorium on the discussion of Chinese representation at the recent meeting of the United Nations General Assembly.

Mr. Brockway: asked the Lord Privy Seal how the British delegate to the United Nations voted on the motion that the membership of the Government of the Chinese People's Republic should be placed on the agenda; and which delegates voted in favour, which against, and which abstained.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Lord Privy Seal why the British delegate to the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation voted to ban the question of Chinese representation from the Assembly agenda.

Mr. Heath: I have nothing to add to what I said on this subject during the debate on 4th November. The complete list of countries and how they voted is available in the Provisional Record of the General Assembly for that day, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

Mr. Swingler: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his speech he was unable to produce a single sensible reason for voting for the continued exclusion of China from the United Nations and that Britain this year was unable to carry a very large number of countries, including countries of the Commonwealth, with her in this foolish resistance? Will he not now give an undertaking that as soon as practicable we shall enter into negotiations with the new American Administration with a view to having a realistic policy for bringing China into the United Nations?

Mr. Heath: The debate in the United Nations was not on the exclusion of China; it was on the question whether the matter should be discussed and whether the moratorium should be continued. The Government continue to hold the view which they held previously, that the division between the countries at the United Nations on this subject was so great that at this moment it was not advisable to debate the matter.

Mr. Brockway: Is not this subservience to the American view, rather than acting in the interests of the peace of the world? How can we possibly have an international authority which excludes one-sixth of the population of the earth from the United Nations?

Mr. Heath: I am not here concerned with arguing the merits or the demerits of the case. I am arguing about the situation at the United Nations. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will recall that there are still 45 nations in the United Nations which recognise the authorities in Formosa and have very strong feelings about the matter.

Mr. Rankin: Surely the right hon. Gentleman realises that this has nothing to do with the attitude which this Government declare in the House? When are they going to stop dancing upon this subject like a hen on a hot griddle? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that they are saying things in the House which they oppose in America when they go to vote at the United Nations? When is that type of subservience to America going to stop?

Mr. Heath: The views of the other nations have this to do with it, that they affect the manner in which it should


be handled in the United Nations, if a solution is to be found which does not create more difficulties than it removes.

Mr. Healey: Is it not the case that a very large number of countries at present opposing the discussion of this question are taking their lead from the Government, and has not the time now come, since we have a new Administration in the United States, many of whose supporters are known to have different views from those of the old Administration, for the Government to announce that they propose to support the admission of the Peking Government at the next session, and to initiate immediate discussions with their allies to discuss contingent problems such as the future of Formosa?

Mr. Heath: There does not seem to be a great deal of point in initiating discussions with one's allies, if one announces before the discussions what one's policy is going to be. We shall carry on policy discussions with the United States Administration in due course on a very wide range of subjects.

Mr. Healey: The Lord Privy Seal will recollect, if he tries, that I suggested we should discuss not the admission of the Peking Government, on which I should have thought the position of this country could have been made clear long ago, but the solution of the contingent problems such as the enlargement of the Security Council and the future of the territory of Taiwan.

Mr. Heath: Those are wider questions than the Questions on the Order Paper.

Racial Discrimination

Mr. Brockway: asked the Lord Privy Seal how the British delegate on the Trusteeship Committee of the United Nations voted on the resolution sponsored by India and 14 Afro-Asian states and Bolivia calling on countries with overseas territories to rescind racial discrimination immediately; and which delegations voted in favour, which against, and which abstained.

Mr. Heath: The resolution, which did not relate solely to legisation involving discrimination, was adopted by 74 votes to none with two abstentions (Australia and the United Kingdom). Full details of the voting on the resolution are contained

in United Nations document A/C.4/SR. 1028 of 31st October, a copy of which is in the Library.

Mr. Brockway: Does not the right hon. Gentleman regard it as disgraceful that the vote of the United Kingdom should have been one in a minority of two against 70 on this issue of racial discrimination? What in the world is the use of the Prime Minister going to Cape Town to criticise the system in the Union of South Africa if the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends support this policy in the United Nations.

Mr. Heath: Far from it being disgraceful, I regard it as regrettable that the hon. Member has not read the speech of the British delegate at the United Nations.

Mr. Brockway: I have.

Mr. Heath: Or the full content of the resolution. In his speech the British delegate made it absolutely plain that, of course, we are opposed to racial discrimination. [HON. MEMBERS: "And vote against."] What the British delegate objected to, or the reason that he gave why we could not vote for the resolution, was that it called for the immediate introduction of universal adult suffrage, and that is not the policy which has been followed by either party in the House as far as multi-racial territories are concerned. Secondly, it called for an immediate rejection of all discriminatory legislation, and this would include discriminatory legislation in British Territories which is there in favour of the local indigenous population.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: (by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House Whether he will provide time for an early debate on the proposed acquisition by Ford Motors of America of the minority shares in Ford Motors, of Dagenham.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not yet received an application. In the circumstances, I think that the best course for me is to discuss the question


of a debate through the usual channels, when, I do not doubt, something could be arranged.

Mr. Gaitskell: Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not yet received a formal application, information about the proposed deal has been made public by the Ford Motor Company. Although the formal application may not have been put in, will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Government have been informally approached about this? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that he will provide time for a debate before the Government make their decision on this matter?

Mr. Butler: On the first part of the question, I do not think that it would be right or proper for me to answer questions of policy when dealing with a business question, which is all I am doing.
In answer to the second part of the question, my right hon. and learned Friend made clear yesterday that he would pay attention to all the points raised, but that he himself reserved his position in regard to taking a decision. But he is, of course, answerable to the House for any decision that may be taken.

Mr. Gaitskell: I asked whether any informal approach had been made to the Government. It was not a question of policy, but a question which is relevant to the speed with which we may have a debate. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a widespread desire in the House to have more information about this whole business and that we really are in complete doubt about the reasons for this move? I believe that it would be in the interest of all of us if we could receive some kind of further statement about the proposed merger, and then have a debate before the Government take a decision.

Mr. Butler: I am informed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that no informal approaches have been made. I think that it would be much better to take this bit by bit and have discussions through the usual channels, and we might then attempt to meet the convenience

of hon. Members while reserving, in particular, the reservation made by my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that there has been no discussion between Treasury officials or the Bank of England and representatives of the Ford Motor Company, in view of the widespread impression that there has been general encouragement given to the Ford Motor Company on this matter? Secondly, in view of the request made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, would the right hon. Gentleman consider making available to the House, in a White Paper, all the information at present in the possession of Her Majesty's Government on this matter? Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that in the case of the Trinidad Oil deal, which was the first case of this grand process of liquidation which the Government have been following, a White Paper was presented to the House?

Mr. Butler: I cannot answer a question of policy in business time. I am not the Minister responsible. I can only give the information given to me by my right hon. and learned Friend, which was in the sense that I have just given it, namely, that the Treasury and the Chancellor have not had the sort of contacts to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. I will, of course, discuss with my right hon. and learned Friend the request made by the right hon. Gentleman about information but, in the circumstances, I do not think that we can carry the matter further today.

Mr. Edelman: Irrespective of whether the Chancellor has had informal contact with Ford of America, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that there is a widespread impression that the Board of Trade has had communications with Ford of America and that through that channel the Treasury has been made aware of the interest of Ford of America in this matter? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that such informal approaches have not been made to the Treasury through the Board of Trade?

Mr. Butler: I shall have to ascertain the accuracy of that. I simply do not know, and I do not propose to give an


inaccurate reply in an answer to a business question, which is what Mr. Speaker has allowed. The answer which I originally gave might well be taken up through the usual channels and by that means we might make progress

Mr. H. Wilson: Before the right hon. Gentleman takes further steps through the usual channels, which, I hope, will be quick, may I ask whether he will inform himself of the facts of this matter, because this is not a question of policy but a matter relevant to the debate? Does the right hon. Gentleman not recall that yesterday hon. Members on both sides of the House expressed their very deep concern about this business? Does he not think that it is highly relevant to the question of having a debate to know whether this has been fixed up through any subordinate Department or through the Bank of England before the House of Commons has had a chance of expressing its view?

Mr. Butler: I will note that, and I will discuss it not only with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but with the President of the Board of Trade; but in answer to a business question I cannot take the matter any further.

Mr. Grimond: Are we to understand that Ford of America allowed these statements to be published in their name with absolutely no indication from Her Majesty's Government whether this offer might be approved or not? Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House as much information as possible not only about this situation, but about what has happened in other cases in which foreign interests have held either part or the whole of the equity of the company, so that in this case we may have a comparison with the past of what might happen in the future?

Mr. Butler: I cannot answer the first part of that question, but in reply to the second part, I feel sure that it would be the wish of my right hon. and learned Friend to see that the House has the maximum information on this matter.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Ballot for Notices of Motions.

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. This is one of those occasions when I

think your guidance is required, Mr. Speaker. The House gets into disrepute because of the sort of procedure that we have just had, where the Leader of the House is answering questions on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is sitting next to him, is getting paid about £5,000 a year, and is not prepared to answer any questions. The Leader of the House says, "I will let my right hon. and learned Friend know and will ask his views". Is there anything that we can do to get the Chancellor onto his feet to answer an important question like this?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will be aware that what was here permitted was a question directed to business to the Leader of the House and nothing else, and that there are Treasury Questions tomorrow.

Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order. With respect, Mr. Speaker, do you realise that the question whether there should be a debate is one that concerns not only a small section of hon. Members, but all hon. Members in the House? Is it not realised by the Government that the anxieties of those——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even the right hon. Gentleman cannot ask me whether something is realised or not by the Government. I have not the slightest idea what they realise.

Mr. Shinwell: Naturally, we appreciate your difficulty, Mr. Speaker, in not understanding what is in the mind of the Government; but if we cannot obtain satisfactory assurances from the Government, to whom must we appeal for protection?

Mr. Speaker: There must be some limit to the growing practice, because we waste so much time on it, of addressing to me questions which are not really points of order.

Mr. Brockway: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I certainly do not want to put to you a point which would seem to be outside your sphere, but we are here to represent our constituents—

Mr. Kershaw: With a majority of only 88?

Mr. Brockway: I have 1,200 workers in my constituency, employed by Fords.


The Leader of the House said that no application had yet been received from Detroit. Everyone knows——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the hon. Member be good enough to indicate what he is saying as a point of order? I must be stern about this, otherwise we waste so much time.

Mr. Brockway: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House said he could not give an answer as to a debate because no application had yet be received from Detroit. The point I am putting is this: everyone knows that there have been discussions between Detroit and representatives of the Board of Trade and the Treasury on this matter. The anxieties of our constituents ought not to be postponed because of that kind of thing.

Mr. Speaker: I shall require the help of the House about this. I hope that hon. Members will not usurp the time of the House by rising to address points of order to me which are not points of order.

Mr. Driberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You checked questions, as I understand it, because they were going outside the limits of a question on business, which is what you gave permission for. May I, with great respect, point out to you that the Leader of the House, in answering that question on business, addressed himself to an argument of substance relating to the debate, because, in order to excuse postponing the debate until after a decision had been taken, he reminded us of the undertaking given yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that all the points raised yesterday would be borne in mind? This is strictly on business. Is it not therefore legitimate, and in order, to ask him a point arising out of that remark of his?

Mr. Speaker: No, because I brought the questioning to an end. Hon. Members should not presume why, but at least one of the factors in my mind was the desirability of getting on with business.

Mr. Driberg: May I put it to you, with great respect, that that does not meet the case, since we were able to raise this matter yesterday only by questions? It is absolutely essential that there should be a debate in which we can argue the

case at length—and this is surely a question strictly on business and not outside it?

Mr. Speaker: There must be some limit to it. I do not suppose that I exercise my discretion infallibly. I cannot think, having regard to yesterday's proceedings, that anybody is in the slightest doubt about the desire of certain hon. Members to have a debate. I do not believe that the matter would be emphasised by taking it further now.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did I understand correctly that you indicated to the House that, despite the topical and nation-wide interest in this subject, we must stop trying to get an answer from the Government because the time of the House for other business is passing? What is the time of the House for other than to satisfy our constituents on matters such as this?

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the hon. Member's enthusiasm, but I have a duty to perform to the House as a whole. It is not easy, and I do my best, but it involves putting a stop to supplementary questions on Private Notice Questions at some point. I do not suggest that I am always right about it, but the House must trust my discretion. Do let us get on.

BALLOTS FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Foreign Policy

Mr. Benn: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 2nd December, I shall call attention to the need for a new British foreign policy initiative, and move a Resolution.

Newspapers (Closure)

Mr. Crosland: I have been authorised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) to say that he begs to give notice that on Friday, 2nd December, he will call attention to the closure of newspapers, and move a Resolution.

Preservation of the Countryside

Mr. Gower: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 2nd December, I shall call attention to the need for the preservation of the countryside, and move a Resolution.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) raised with me a complaint of breach of Privilege. I have carefully considered the complaint he made to me. He asked me to consider the position in two ways. He asked me to consider the position that the allegations of the writer of the letter in The Times were untrue. Without in any way judging of the facts myself, I have not felt called upon to rule upon that position because, prima facie, there is nothing before me to suggest that they were untrue. On the contrary the hon. Member himself, in making his complaint, cited the relevant passage in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The hon. Member then asked me to consider the conduct of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in using the words which are recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The substance of the complaint is this: that the hon. Member for Kidderminster, under the protection of that privilege against action at law which attaches to words spoken in this House, spoke words which, in the context in which they were spoken, defamed a person who is not a Member of either House of Parliament.
It is not for me, but for the House, to say whether or no such was the effect of the words used, but, assuming for the purpose of my present Ruling that such was their effect, in my view the speaking of these words does not, prima facie, give rise to a case of breach of Privilege of this House. As stated in Ansen's Law and Custom of the Constitution, Fifth Edition, Volume 1, page 172,
Speech and action in Parliament may thus be said to be unquestioned and free. But this freedom from external influence or interference does not involve any unrestrained licence of speech within the walls of the House.
I end my quotation there, and would add that, because hon. Members are protected by Privilege, the House has always been jealous to see that that Privilege is not abused. But to abuse Privilege is not in itself to commit a breach of the Privilege of this House, and it has never been so regarded, although the House has, from time to time, punished Members for offensive words spoken before the House.
Accordingly, my conclusion is that the complaint is not one to which I am entitled to give precedence over the Orders of the Day.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: While thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for the trouble which you have taken in considering your Ruling on the point I raised yesterday. I will, if I may, make this submission. Although it may not be a breach of our privileges to abuse our privileges in the House, this is a matter that should, perhaps, receive further consideration.
Before I consider whether I ought to pursue the matter further, I hope that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) might feel, on reflection, that the words he used in the heat of the moment—we all use words in the heat of the moment in this place—might now be withdrawn in the interests of the preservation of the privileges of this House and in the interests of those outside the House.

Mr. Speaker: I did not know what the hon. Gentleman was going to say to me when I called him. I think that he has wandered out of order on this point.

Mr. Nabarro: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a personal statement in this matter and on the topic on which you have ruled.
I did not realise, when I made the intervention on 9th November, 1960—last Wednesday—during a speech being delivered to the House by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) and I employed the form of words to which the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) referred yesterday, that such form of words could represent any abuse of Parliamentary Privilege. I did not realise that when I used the words. The topic then being debated was an extremely controversial one, and my intervention was made immediately following the hon. Member for Newton accusing the entire Conservative Party, as I understand it, of political cowardice.

Mr. Hamilton: Is there anything wrong with that?

Mr. Nabarro: The word "cowardice" was strangely reminiscent to me, having regard to my activities during the last few weeks. As I have unintentionally—I emphasise "unintentionally"—been guilty of an abuse of Parliamentary


Privilege, as you have just ruled, Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I should like to seek your permission and the permission of the whole House unreservedly to withdraw the words referred to, though I recognise that they cannot now be expunged from the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Bellenger: Mr. Bellenger rose——

Mr. Speaker: I do not know to what the right hon. Gentleman is rising, but I could not allow any debate or discussion on a statement in personal explanation.

Mr. Bellenger: What I seek to raise, Mr. Speaker, relates to your statement and not to anything that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has said. What I want to know is whether the inference to be drawn from your statement to the House is that the word "coward" is disorderly, because if it is——

Mr. Speaker: No. I think that the right hon. Gentleman had better read what I said. It could not conceivably bear such an interpretation.

Mr. Lee: As I am somewhat involved in this, perhaps I might intervene. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) did not know whether I was accusing the whole Conservative Party or merely the Government of political cowardice. Perhaps I might make it abundantly clear that I accuse the whole Government of that.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance, until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-two, of the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943 the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, being expenses which under any Act are to be provided out of such moneys.

Resolution agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If hon. Members would make a little less noise in leaving the Chamber, we might be able to proceed with business.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule

3.54 p.m.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 7 and 8.
Amendments similar to this one have been moved over a number of years, as the Under-Secretary of State will remember, and we have on each occasion protested at the fact that the legislation covering aliens is contained, not as we should have liked, in an Act of Parliament, but in the form of an Order which Parliament has never considered, has never had the opportunity to criticise, and has never passed.
The only advantage of the present arrangement, to our way of thinking, is that it provides an opportunity for this annual debate, although, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) pointed out last year, there would be no difficulty should legislation, as we hope, one day be introduced about requiring the Home Secretary, in that legislation, to produce


an annual report to Parliament about aliens so that we should have an opportunity of a yearly debate in the same way.
The Amendment raises the whole question of the position of aliens in the United Kingdom. Last year, my hon. and learned Friend referred to the presence in this country of 500,000 such people, some of them permanent residents and some of them visitors for a longer or shorter period. The first question I wish to ask the Under-Secretary is: can he tell us whether that estimate is still correct? Is it a fact that there are in the neighbourhood of half a million aliens in this country, and is it possible for him to break down that figure between people more or less permanently resident here and visitors?
Perhaps I may say, in parenthesis, after asking my first question, that I hope the Under-Secretary will be in a better position this year to answer some of the questions put to him in the debate than he was last year, when some of us on these benches were very much disappointed when, after we had put to him a number of clear and specific points, he proceeded, as seems to us to happen rather too often with Government Front Bench spokesmen, to read the brief which he had in his hand at the beginning of the debate, with rather too few changes in it and too few replies to our points. So we beg him to give us, if he can, some specific answers to the points that we shall raise today.
The first point that I want to make is the general one that the regulations which we are discussing are very many years out of date. As my hon. and learned Friend said last year, they go back to August, 1914, having been passed at that time because of the imminence of the First World War, and passed in conditions when the movement of people from one country to another took place in totally different circumstances. Some of my hon. Friends are inclined to feel that movement by road and by rail is now getting rather slower than it was in the past. But, at all events, 1914 was before the aeroplane was invented. The Under-Secretary will surely agree that the conditions of travel and the volume of passengers moving from place to place and from country to country have entirely changed since 1914.
Indeed, we are reaching a point where, like most other up-to-date nations, we shall have to have a thorough overhaul of our whole aliens procedure affecting not only aliens resident here, but also those coming here for shorter visits. One cannot escape the feeling that sooner or later, and probably sooner, the Home Office will be compelled to alter its present procedure by the sheer volume of passengers moving into and out of our airports and ports. One has only to go to London Airport—perhaps particularly to London Airport North—or Dover to see that the present arrangements for immigration control, like the arrangements for Customs formalities, are becoming unworkable because of the sheer volume of passengers entering and leaving this country.
I would invite the Under-Secretary, if he has any doubt on the matter, to pay a personal visit either to London Airport North, which is a very good example of the way in which the present arrangements are breaking down, or to Dover, and then to tell the House how much longer he thinks it is possible to make passengers put up with the slow and antiquated procedure now in force.
4.0 p.m.
The question of the handling of visitors on their first arrival at airports and ports in Britain is giving rise to increasing resentment at present. The Under-Secretary may have noticed correspondence in the Press since our last debate on this matter. I received a number of letters on the subject after the correspondence in The Times, some months ago. I should like, after the debate, to draw to the personal attention of the Under-Secretary a selection of the letters, not all of which it would be appropriate to quote in this Committee.
I do, however, wish to quote from one of them. It is from a British businessman who pays frequent visits to the Continent, and he makes a specific complaint, at the end of his letter, to which I hope the Under-Secretary will give his attention. He makes this general comment:
I myself travel frequently to Western Europe and particularly to Denmark, where I am treated with utmost courtesy, the only sign of bureaucracy being that I am politely reminded in leaflet slipped into my passport that I may only stay three months and that I may not work without a permit. How different when the position is reversed.


He goes on to give examples from specific cases which are within his knowledge.
One of the letters which I shall refer to the Under-Secretary is from an American subject of British origin who frequently comes to stay in this country at no charge to the British taxpayer, because she is well able to look after her own arrangements when she is here. She complains bitterly about the formalities to which she is subjected, and the difficulty of registering with the police when she moves about the country.
Finally, another letter from which I should like to quote comes from an international civil servant who makes frequent visits to this country:
In Europe, since about 1956, I am never asked any questions when I enter Sweden. Holland or even Russia.
He compares his experience in crossing the Soviet frontier with his experience as an international civil servant coming into this country.
I quote this brief selection from some of my correspondence because I think that they are typical of what a number of foreign visitors to Britain are beginning to feel when contrasting our arrangements with those in other European countries. Perhaps I may be forgiven for introducing a personal note, but I am constantly reminded of these things, because I married a woman of Swedish nationality and every time we arrive at London Airport we find that the children and I have to go through one set of formalities while my wife has to go through another. She goes through all the rigmarole of filling in the landing and embarkation cards every time she comes into or goes out of the country.
I should like to make one further general point. We ought to remember during this debate that this country is very much in the debt of a large majority of the aliens who have come over here, those who are permanently resident and are working in this country as the result of a labour permit, which is issued only to people who are prepared to undertake work for which British subjects cannot be found. These people are making an important contribution to our economy. As I know from personal experience, they are sustaining particularly agriculture and forestry, and are

there making a very valuable contribution.
In the second place, the liberality of our immigration laws is affected by and affects what is done in other countries for the free movement of British citizens who wish to visit, work or live abroad. I think that if one were to try to make an estimate to show whether those in this country have benefited more than other persons living and working as aliens in other parts of the world, one would rapidly come to the conclusion that many thousands of our fellow-citizens have made a large contribution to their own prosperity and that of this country, which they could not have done if they had remained here, and that, on the whole, we are very much on the credit side in that calculation.
May I refer to the formalities affecting visitors coming here for short periods? They are mostly people who come for business reasons or on holiday. I hope that the Under-Secretary has studied, as I am sure he has, the Annual Report of the British Travel and Holidays Association for the year ended March, 1960, which is the last one which it has issued. He will have noticed on page 5 an outspoken plea, and I quote:
Outmoded passport and other inhospitable frontier controls should be removed.
There follows a series of suggested reforms which the association believes are urgently needed to expand our growing tourist business. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman has also noticed a document which is a revised version of a paper called, "Requirements of the Tourist Industry, 1960," published as a bulletin of the British Travel and Holidays Association in December of last year, shortly after our own debate in the House.
Here are a number of specific recommendations which were made. First, that the Government should extend their policy of reducing frontier formalities to the minimum, particularly so far as the immigration control is concerned. Secondly, the association urges the extension of passport-free visits, particularly for Western European residents. Thirdly, the association notes that 14 European countries, which are then listed, have simplified the procedure for the temporary entry of tourists' private cars, by the complete abolition or


simplification of Customs documents. The association very much hopes that similar action will be taken here.
I hope that these views of this association, which represents principally people concerned with the tourist business in this country, have been noted by the Under-Secretary.
I turn from the question of the transient visitors to this country to that of the registration of aliens and of those living more or less permanently here. I start with a specific plea for those aliens who, after a normal trial period, when they are required to renew their residence permits at rather short intervals, are then accepted and are allowed to remain in this country on what they hope and believe to be a permanent basis. I wish to repeat the plea made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton in last year's debate that, when these people have been registered in this country for a period of years—two or three years, or even five years, which is the qualifying period for naturalisation—the Home Secretary should no longer have the arbitrary power to deport them, as he now has.
Bearing in mind that many of these aliens are married to British citizens, have children who are British subjects, and who are dependent for their work on living in this country, and who, very often, have only tenuous connections with their country of origin, it is hard that they should have this threat of deportation hanging over them during this trial period, when the Home Secretary has allowed them to stay here for a period of years.
In the course of last year's debate, the Under-Secretary undertook to make a study of aliens' registration and of the system of notification to the police, and I quote from what he said in that debate:
… we have initiated a further study of the whole system of registration, notification to the police, and so on, as laid down in the Order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November, 1959; Vol. 613, c. 469.]
The hon. and learned Gentleman added that comments made in the debate by other hon. Members would be fully considered before any decision was taken about altering any of the provisions. Has a decision yet been reached and,

if so, will the Under-Secretary now tell the Committee what it is?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): indicated assent.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I notice that the hon. and learned Gentleman nods assent. I am grateful to him. He will recall that Questions have been asked since that debate. On 10th March and in May last year I asked him whether he was aware that we were becoming very apprehensive at the delay. As he is to make an announcement on the subject today, we shall have to leave any further comment until we have heard what his decision is.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will also be able to say a few words about progress in the matter of simplifying complexities and making it easier for visiting foreigners to come to this country. References have been made to negotiations between the United Kingdom Government and the nine member countries of O.E.E.C. with a view to concluding an agreement to permit nationals of those countries to visit the United Kingdom for up to three months without a passport, bringing with them only a national identity card and a visitor's card.
I understand that agreement has now been concluded in respect of the Benelux countries and citizens of the Federal German Republic, but not yet with any other. I would like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman what progress is being made on that front. Why has there been such a long delay, and what is the position in respect of British nationals wishing to travel on a reciprocal basis to countries concluding such an agreement with us? I appreciate that we are in a difficulty, in that we have abolished our own national identity card and exactly the same system cannot operate, but I should like to know whether we are making arrangements for British nationals to enjoy something like the facilities which aliens coming to this country are to enjoy.
The hon. and learned Gentleman may also be able to say something about the extension of passport-free day trips—although not many of my hon. Friends attach very much importance to them, because we want to see them superseded by a much


wider liberalisation of travel facilities, especially by the extension of the card system which I have mentioned, in which case the passport-free day trips will lose their significance. I understand that since the last debate in November, 1959, there have been visa abolition agreements with Mexico, Bolivia and Spain. We welcome those, but I would like to know what further progress is being made. The last announcement, concerning Spain, was made on 15th June.
I want to repeat three questions which were asked during last year's debate, which I followed up in correspondence with the Under-Secretary, but which were not effectively answered. The first is a general question, to which I hope it will be possible not to give too narrow or too legalistic an answer, because many of my hon. Friends and many people outside the House are genuinely puzzled by it. Although we find it necessary to apply to aliens, including citizens of many highly developed Western European nations, the complicated formalities and regulations which are now in force, we do not apply those to any citizens of the Commonwealth.
I am quite clear of the distinction between Commonwealth citizenship and foreign nationality, and the last thing I should wish to do is to deprive Commonwealth citizens of the rights they enjoy because they are citizens of nations associated with us in that way, but many of us are puzzled to know what is the factual justification for applying these complicated regulations to citizens of Belgium, Holland and other highly developed nations who, on the whole, are less likely to find themselves in difficulties—economic or social—than the citizens of the West Indies, West Africa, Malta or Pakistan. If it is possible to dispense with these regulations in the case of Commonwealth citizens, is there really still a case for applying them to these alien nationals?
4.15 p.m.
Secondly, is it not possible to simplify the registration formalities in respect of foreigners who come to this country holding labour permits? Part of the answer given by the Under-Secretary when asked this question last year was that holders of these labour permits did not in all cases actually come to this

country. That may be so, but those who do are required to leave a part of the document with the immigration officer when they arrive. There is, therefore, a simple method of checking which aliens holding labour permits have come to this country. In view of the fact that because they hold their labour permits they are required to remain in specified employment, and under the care of a known employer, is it not possible to relax the regulations in their case and not subject them to all the complexities of the regulations covering other aliens not covered by labour permits?
Finally, could not we initiate discussions, at least with the Governments of Western European and Southern European countries, for a standardisation of embarkation and landing cards if the Home Office insists on retaining these cards for another year? We believe that they could be dispensed with altogether, and many people, including those in the tourist and travel business, do not understand the validity of those cards when taken in conjunction with a short interrogation by the immigration officer. Either the answers on the cards should be adequate, or the interrogation should suffice. We believe that it would be quite easy—as many other countries have found—to dispense with these cards altogether, but if that is not the view of the Home Secretary could not he at least examine the possibilities of standardising these cards with neighbouring countries from whom the great volume of foreign visitors come? If he could do that it would facilitate travel very much indeed.
I am well aware that the Home Office can no doubt put up most convincing briefs defending the present system in its entirety and in its full complexity. That is part of the duty of the Home Office civil servants. But if they had been asked, in specific cases where the Home Secretary has actually relaxed the regulations, they would have put up exactly the same sort of arguments. Had the Home Secretary sent for his officials in 1956 and said, "We are proposing to admit tens of thousands of Hungarians into this country without any kind of inspection, control or formality," I do not know what kind of brief they would have given him, but they would have said, "It is entirely impossible. Our whole system of controlling aliens will


break down if this is done". Yet it was done, and the Hungarians came to this country. I do not know what proportion arriving here got into difficulties because the full rigours of the immigration procedures were not applied to them, but I suspect that it was a very small proportion.
Similarly, if he had asked his officials to produce a brief stating that in the case of aliens coming here from a specific foreign country we would dispense entirely with the regulations and treat them in all respects as British citizens, the officials would have said that it was quite impossible and that the system would break down. But this has been done in the case of citizens of the Republic of Ireland. They are not only exempt from any regulations; they have been entitled to take part in General Elections and to vote for Members of this House.
I am not suggesting that that should be done in the case of aliens from other countries. I am saying that briefs can always be produced for defending the present complex system in its entirety, and that the duty of Ministers and of the House of Commons is to look from time to time at conditions as they now are and to realise that these arrangements were devised many years ago when conditions were entirely different. I think that we should also realise that we are rapidly being left behind in this field, as in many others, by many Western European countries.
The Under-Secretary of State may get special treatment as a Minister, but, if he travels as an ordinary individual across the frontiers of Europe he will see that our arrangements compare very badly with those of almost any other country on this side of the Iron Curtain. I know that one Home Office argument is that it does not make much difference whether the French, or the Italians, or the Belgians, are liberal with their arrangements and simply subject the traveller to a cursory passport examination instead of to the full rigours of the immigration formalities which we apply, because, as they have land frontiers, it is impossible to control movement effectively anyway, but we, living in an island, are in a better position to do it, and that is the justification for the regulations.
That is a poor argument. After all, we want to encourage and develop our tourist trade as far as we can. The fact that we have so many obstacles prevents people who would otherwise come here from doing so. Is there any reason to add to them? Secondly, I suspect that all these complexities of forms, the interrogations and the registrations, very rarely help to catch the people for whom the Minister or the police may be looking. I cannot believe that a foreign agent, or a spy, or a black marketeer, or somebody engaged in some other illegal activity, would not have a perfectly valid-looking passport, probably somebody else's, and would not be equipped with all the answers, and would not be well prepared to go through the rigours of interrogation by immigration officers.
I am sceptical about the real effect of the present system. I had some further evidence of this not long ago when I put some Questions asking the Minister for information about aliens in my constituency. On both occasions he said that he regretted that the information was not available, and, as it would be very difficult to find, he could not let me have it. If he cannot tell how many foreigners there are in Swindon, when every one of them is required to visit the police at frequent intervals, when he has a stack of cards saying when they came into and out of this country, what is the purpose of these complicated arrangements?
I end by repeating the plea which has been made so often in this House. We want to see drastic changes in the present arrangements. We want to see the arrangements consolidated in an Act of Parliament which can be criticised, discussed, and passed by the House of Commons. Also, we very much hope that this will be the last occasion on which we debate the Aliens Order in this form.

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: I must begin by apologising because I have an engagement, which was quite unavoidable, which I must attend in 20 minutes' time. Perhaps there is a silver lining to the cloud from the point of view of the rest of the Committee.
I apologise for thus going away early in the debate, but I do not apologise for


being about to repeat what I have said before, I think several times. It is some slight pleasure to me—this is not what is called provocative—that, by the accident of the batting order, this time the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) will hear me, and, with any luck, I shall not hear him. I promise to read him twice, but I will give him 6d. if his speech is shorter than mine.
I do not apologise for what I have said before, because it has not been effective nor, I am sure, has it been fully understood by the Front Bench. I think that the Committee ought to dislike delegated legislation. I think that it ought to dislike temporary legislation. I think that it ought to dislike emergency legislation, especially war emergency legislation, and I do not believe that there is anyone in this Committee, when there is not some party interest involved, who does not agree in disliking all those three sorts of legistlation. Each one of them is in itself really, so to speak, an unparliamentary, and almost an anti-parliamentary, way of using the Parliamentary function. If that is true, plainly there ought to be great dislike of something which has all three vices, as this one has.
I think that it is becoming a rather ridiculous scandal that this should have gone on now continuously, I think that one may fairly say, since 1914; nearly a generation and a half; in a sense continually and almost continuously since 1914. It is absurd that this should be tolerated any longer.
I do not wish to go into the merits of the case. For all my argument cares, it really does not matter if the law as it is now applied is perfect, and if the administration of the law as it is now applied is perfect. What I object to is the basis of the law. On the other hand, right hon. Members on the Front Bench, from whichever party they come, are rather apt, when they answer objections to this kind of law, to pray in aid precedents, and to say: "You did it," and so on. They do not get into their heads what I think it is most important to insist on on this occasion always, that in these matters precedent does not tell in favour of the practice which tells against it.
Where the excuse for doing something is that circumstances are extremely exceptional; where that is the reason for doing it, as with temporary legislation, with war legislation, and with delegated legislation——

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I am finding it very difficult to relate his remarks to the Amendment. He is going very much wider than the Amendment.

Sir K. Pickthorn: I am sorry, Sir Gordon. It has been all right hitherto—this is rather unfairly putting my own argument against me.
The connection with the Amendment is the endeavour to insist that it is high time—it has long been high time, and it gets higher time by one every year—that this business was put on the basis of renewed legislation intended to be permanent.

Mr. J. Grimond: I want to follow the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker), and the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) in this simple contention, that the First World War is now a long time behind us, and the Second World War is also some time behind us, and that emergency legislation, introduced for wartime purposes, should be regularised and we should have an Act now.
The only argument against these views is that we should lose this annual debate, but that is quite clearly not so. It could be so arranged that under the Act we had regulations that were debated or raised on report from the Home Office, as we are doing this afternoon.
I do not want to labour this point, because the arguments for it are well known. Indeed, the onus of disproving that these regulations should be incorporated in an Act lies on the Government. It is not for us to argue that the normal procedure should be followed. It is for the Government to put up better reasons why it should not be followed in 1960, whatever was right in 1914 or 1945.
4.30 p.m.
I want to add my plea to those of people who say that we must get away from the idea that "alien" is a sort of dirty word; that aliens are to be looked at with extreme suspicion. I am


sure that the Home Office does not think so, but a feeling has been growing up that, in many ways, this country is one of the most insular in the whole world; that it is more difficult to get in here than it is to get into many countries that we regard as less enlightened. Again and again, in these debates, stories are told of the treatment at the ports of those who are not British citizens, and we hear of them being put to great inconvenience there.
It is not only that such treatment is uncivilised. We must remember that we are trying to encourage tourism. Other countries are trying to break down their barriers. I was recently in Western Germany, and, on my arrival at the airport there. I went straight from the aeroplane to the car. No one asked for documents, or looked at my luggage at all. I was deeply shocked, I must confess, but, on second thoughts, it is highly unlikely that, by not looking at passports, the German authorities let in many dangerous criminals, nor do I suppose that many excisable goods get past them.
Reference has been made to the abolition of passports. Has some agreement been reached with Western Germany and the Benelux countries? If there is any difficulty in reciprocal rights because our citizens lack identity cards, have the Home Office proceeded with the idea, put forward some years ago, that it should be possible to buy a type of return ticket on which the personal particulars were entered, and which could be used in place of an identity document?
Whenever possible, of course, the utmost humanity and consideration should be shown at our ports and railway stations to nationals of whatever sort and of whatever country. I am sure that the Home Office wants that. The general view of the Home Office is that it is an extremely decent organisation, filled with the best motives but, perhaps, a little grandfatherly and slow—even stick-in-the-mud. It is like the best sort of old-fashioned nanny. But children grow up, and wish to move from the nursery world into a somewhat newer atmosphere. This annual debate should serve such objects.
We were told in 1945 that over 1 million foreign passengers had entered the United Kingdom. What are the comparable figures today? I should think

that they had grown. In 1945, 1,751 aliens were refused entry. That was regarded by the Home Office as being very few, but most of us on this side thought it a considerable number. I would be grateful if we could be told how many of these people have been refused entry in the last comparable period, and we might also be given some break-down of the reasons for refusal.
What is the position about the recommendations made some years ago at the Council of Europe? Have we got any further with them? Is it true that on aircraft there is to be a reintroduction of some of the forms one used to be asked to fill in before landing? I read of that in one newspaper, but I have not experienced it. That form seems to be one of the most pointless documents ever invented. I remember that in one debate we were all electrified to be told that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) had been travelling for some time under the name of Adolf Hitler, and that, so far, no one had caught up with him. It is hard to imagine anyone who would think of the hon. and learned Gentleman as Adolf Hitler——

Sir K. Pickthorn: It is very difficult to prove the contrary.

Mr. Grimond: I know the hon. Gentleman's extreme regret at having to stay, and possibly to hear the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, but there it is.
I want to know what happens to those forms. Where do they go? Who looks at them? Who follows them up? Who checks where one's mother was born, what were her Christian names, and where one spent the last 14 or 17 nights, and so on? If all that checking is done, the staff must be enormous—perhaps they are lugubriously still trying to prove that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not Adolf Hitler.
What about refugees—in relation, in particular, to Refugee Year? I know that more than the usual numbers are being allowed in because it is Refugee Year, but what documents must they have, what restrictions are there on their movements, and how are they to be handled by the Home Office?
I should also like more information about the check on aliens who remain


here. How much police time does that take up—and what results from all this procedure? How many criminals do we pick up? What useful statistics do we compile? As the hon. Member for Swindon has said, if he cannot be told how many aliens there are in Swindon—that may be of importance, though I must confess that I do not particularly want to know it—what is the purpose? It would seem to be elementary information that could be extracted by computer from the mass of information flowing into the Home Office. Is that information extracted, and what use is made of it? And, again, what amount of police time is taken up on it?
I turn to the subject of deportation. I understand that there is some right of review by the Chief Magistrate of a deportation order made by the Home Secretary. At various times in these debates suggestions have been made that this should be regularised. I am not certain whether the review is a right or a discretion. I think that it is a discretion; that, in certain cases, people are told that they may go to the Chief Magistrate. Has the Home Office given more thought to this?

Mr. R. T. Paget: Is not the position that they have a right to go to the Chief Magistrate, but that the Chief Magistrate's recommendation is not binding on the Home Secretary?

Mr. Renton: I think that I can answer. In fact, every such recommendation has been accepted.

Mr. Paget: That is an entirely different point. The recommendation is not binding on the Home Secretary.

Mr. Grimond: I am very much indebted to both hon. and learned Gentlemen for their assistance.
No one doubts that the Home Office is a thoroughly humane institution, but we may not always have at the Home Office such humane people as are now there, and others could totally disregard the Chief Magistrate's opinion. There is nothing binding on them. I do not think that the position is quite satisfactory.
What happens to aliens from Scotland? Have they, too, this right——

Mr. Gordon Walker: Aliens from Scotland?

Mr. Grimond: I am sorry—aliens in Scotland.
I do not believe that passports are of any importance whatever when a person is leaving the country. Nobody can stop him leaving this country whether he has a passport or not. They can only warn him that there might be trouble in the other country. Is it a fact that those gentlemen at the airports who look at passports are simply concerned with currency regulations, and that, if there were no currency regulations at all, those men would no longer be in attendance? Under what Act or Order are they acting?
I do not know whether they are concerned simply with currency. My own experience is that they do ask occasionally how much money one has, but they never make the least effort to check the information they are given. I have three passports, so I should not have much difficulty in evading their scrutiny. Is that their only purpose? Is it, therefore, really vital that everyone should have his passport examined before he leaves the country?
I should be grateful if the Home Office spokesman could answer those questions. I like to think that these annual debates have some effect, that progress is being made, and that the Home Office is moving slightly forward and away from the idea that all regulations that have ever been are good and must be kept in force.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has made a good point about people leaving this country. Nobody is stopped from leaving from Idlewild Airport, in the United States, provided that he has a ticket. He does not have to show his passport, but he has to get a clearance certificate from the Revenue authorities if he has been in the country for more than five days.
Perhaps I may have the attention of my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary; I shall be very brief, but I want him to hear what I have to say. The form to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred, that dealing with 14 nights abroad, has disappeared, but we are told that the Board of Trade is to institute a new type of form—why, I do not know—but that it will concern only British subjects.
It is my privilege and pleasure to work very closely in industry with Swiss nationals, and I am always apologising to them for the trouble that they have to go through on their arrival here, which is in contrast to the reception one gets from the authorities at the other end. A man shows his passport at Zurich, or wherever it may be, and is then admitted into the country without question. I believe that the trouble is that the staff at the airports and seaports, though very willing, are not sufficient in number. If we are to have this questioning and inspection, we must have adequate staff.
I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend has ever arrived at Harwich from the Hook of Holland by steamer in the early hours of the morning. If he has not, I recommend him to make a trip there to see what goes on. There is no worse place for foreigners to arrive. There are very few facilities at Harwich Station, and not so long ago these foreigners were treated rather like cattle.
I do not understand why we go in for all this form-filling at all. It is very embarrassing to arrive at London Airport, in an aircraft carrying 80 or 100 other people, and then to see foreigners being herded away and made to queue up because there are not enough staff to deal with them. That is particularly the case when several aircraft arrive at the same time. Whatever may be said about the tourist industry, it is one of the greatest trade benefits to the country, bringing in foreign currency.
I know that my hon. and learned Friend has no responsibility for the Customs authorities, and that the Customs officials do their very best in difficult circumstances. Last year, I complained to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I told him that it had taken some friends of mine 65 minutes to get through the barrier after they had landed. One of those friends is a man who is investing vast sums of foreign currency in this country. Luckily, he took it very well, but that sort of thing is happening every day of the week. I ask my hon. and learned Friend to take the matter up with the Treasury and with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation and others to see whether we can get some cohesion in these matters.

It is not just a matter concerning my hon. and learned Friend's Department, but all those concerned.
Again, I should like to have my hon. and learned Friend's attention. It is very difficult to make a speech that I want him to hear if, while I am making it, he is talking to other hon. Members. He is usually very good about that. As I was saying, I should like him to consult those concerned to see whether we can get some cohesion in the treatment of these foreigners who come here to spend money buying British goods and to see that they get better treatment than they get at present.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: Whatever irksome regulations there may be with regard to the admission of aliens I want to begin in the few short words which I shall address to the House by paying tribute to what I think is the wonderful record of this country in regard to the admission and treatment of aliens. I think that it has a wonderful record. I certainly admire it in every way. It is pleasant to think that it is recognised that as a result of the admission of aliens this country has benefited in many ways.
I agree with what some hon. Members have said in regard to one important point. With this history of liberality it is unfortunate that year after year we have to get up in this House to protest against what is temporary legislation. It seems to me to be a very unfortunate thing indeed. We get the first control in regard to the immigration of aliens in the Act of 1905. The 1914 war came along and we had control of immigration then and now we have the Alien Order of 1953 which governs the present position. This is all temporary legislation which has been enacted as a direct result of an emergency—a war.
It has been said that we ought to have an Act of Parliament which sets out the position of aliens. I want to say as strongly as I can that that position ought to be recognised by the Home Office. It is not really only a question of this matter coming up year after year and having the advantage of being discussed in the form of temporary legislation which has to be renewed. As already said by a number of hon. Members such review can easily be provided


for in an Act of Parliament by some report made annually by the Home Secretary or in some other way.
The reason why we protest against this is that if we discuss the matter today all we can do is to put down this Amendment and talk about it. If we had an Act of Parliament setting out the position of aliens: what they can do and what they cannot do; how they can be admitted; and what restrictions are required, the House would have an opportunity to put down Amendments and discuss the whole matter in detail. We should have an Act of Parliament with regard to aliens which could be discussed in the greatest detail so that we know where we are. We have never had that opportunity. It seems wrong that we should have a considerable number of people who are aliens living in this country, admitted to this country, and that we should merely under a temporary order deal with the way in which they are restricted, the way in which they are admitted and the way in which they are treated. Why should not we have an Act of Parliament setting out the law with regard to this matter so that we can deal with it?
This point has been pressed on the Home Office again and again every single year and no satisfactory answer has been given to it. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not answer me by saying that we have an opportunity every year by this temporary legislation of discussing the matter because that is thoroughly unsatisfactory and I hope that the Home Office will recognise that something must be done with regard to this matter.
There are two other points with which I want to deal. First I want to deal with the point that has been referred to—the question of aliens who live in this country, who have been here since the early days of their birth, who were a few months old when they came to this country; they have always lived here; they are married to Englishwomen and have children who are British. Then such an alien commits an offence and there is a recommendation for deportation. It has been mentioned that he has some sort of privilege in that he can ask the chief magistrate to review the decision. It is utterly wrong that that should

be so. If there is to be a right of appeal let it be to a court of law. Let us have it out in the open and see what the position is. We do not know what is the view of the chief magistrate, and what considerations he takes into account. When the Under-Secretary of State was asked about this matter last year his answer I think was that it would not be in the public interest to disclose how the chief magistrate dealt with the matter. It seems to me to be wrong that it should be done in this way. If there is to be an order of deportation there should be a right of appeal to a court of law.
My second point—and the main reason why I have spoken today—is one which I wish to put particularly to the Under-Secretary. In the debate last year he dealt with the different categories of aliens admitted to this country. I plead with him today to abolish those categories. I have made a number of applications for the admission of aliens, it may be an aged mother, a sister or a brother or other relatives wishing to join their families here. I readily admit that I have always received splendid treatment from the Home Office. The Minister always deals with such cases sympathetically and does what he can. But—in this case it is a very big "but"—surely the position ought not to be related to categories of aliens?
I recognise that if aliens have a criminal record, or are suspected of having done something wrong, and, therefore, it is undesirable to admit them from that point of view, there is a perfectly good case for refusing admission. I recognise that we must take into account the need to ensure that they do not become a charge on the State. I also agree that if there is any danger of them taking work from British citizens they should not be admitted. But, subject to those provisos, why should not aliens be admitted freely? Surely it ought not to be a case of saying that we are restricted to particular categories of aliens.
I know that there is, in cases of distressed relatives, a general discretion; but, broadly speaking, the Home Office asks whether an alien fits into a certain category and, if not, the alien is not admitted. I make an earnest plea to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government ought to consider this


matter in accordance with our tradition of liberality. It would do no harm to admit aliens in the way I have suggested.
I am thinking of many cases which I have put forward. Some time ago I had the case of a woman in one of the Iron Curtain countries who wished to join her brother in this country who was a British citizen. Her brother was in a good position and ready to undertake that his sister would not be a burden to the State. I tried three times to obtain permission for her to remain. I got very sympathetic replies from the Home Office but the answer was always "No." The lady could come for a short time, as her brother was undergoing an operation, but she could not stay permanently.
There are many cases that I know of, of young people who want to come to this country on a visit extending over three or six months, or some such period. I am inclined to the opinion that the Home Office is far too suspicious of such cases. The view is taken that if a person comes here, he may want to stay. I know of a number of cases where permission to come to this country has been refused on that ground. Listening to the people making the application and from the details, there was not the slightest question of them wanting to remain.
Recognising as I do the British tradition of liberality and the great work which has been done for aliens in the past, I say to the Under-Secretary that surely the door ought to be opened a little wider. Surely the way in which the Government should look at the question is that, where the considerations which I have put forward apply, generous treatment ought to be accorded to aliens and they ought to be admitted.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I believe I am right in saying that we have had control over immigration into this country since 1905. It is clear to me that were this Amendment carried, there would not be any control whatsoever. I cannot believe that to be the aim of any hon. Member. It would mean that every conceivable person, every crook, spy or any sort of scallywag, could come into the country and take up residence here.

Mr. Paget: The hon. Gentleman says that we have had control since 1905. We are now being asked to continue an Act

of 1919. If we do not, we go back to the 1905 position.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: My hon. Friend will be able to explain that. The information was given in the debate last year.
I should have thought that hon. Members opposite were as interested as we on this side of the Committee in maintaining full employment in this country and having a rising standard of living. Without this control over immigration we should have a flood of people coming into this country from less happy lands and our standard would go down. I am quite certain that hon. Members who support the Amendment cannot have consulted the trade unions. I am satisfied in my own mind that they would not support a vast flood of immigrants to Britain.
I am satisfied with the present arrangement. To me it seems not a bad procedure that we should discuss immigration in this way each year. There is a certain flexibility about it and in dealing with such a subject we need flexibility.

Mr. Paget: If the hon. Gentleman regards this as a convenient procedure for discussing the matter, why does he complain about our putting down this Amendment? How could we discuss the matter unless the Amendment were put down?

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Of course, it could be discussed. I do not complain about the Amendment being put down, but I should complain were the Amendment carried.
We are given a chance of reviewing the policy of the Home Office over the previous year and of putting Questions to the Minister concerned. On the question of policy I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue to give asylum to people from overseas who are in any way persecuted for their political beliefs. That would be in accordance with our traditions. I hope that he will find it possible, in cases where people have been granted permission to reside in this country, to give permission for their aged parents to come here also. That seems to me reasonable, provided the parents are of good character and will not be a charge on public funds. Thirdly, there are many people, such as scientists, authors and artists, who may wish to


live in Britain. Such people are self-supporting, and I think that they should be allowed to come here, again provided they are of good character.
5.0 p.m.
Against all this, there are many people who come to Britain pretending to be visitors or who come for purposes of education. When their time is up they make every excuse for staying. From the first they have been dishonest. These people should be deported, and deported quickly, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will not mince matters with them.
From time to time we hear criticism of the way certain aliens and others have been treated at the ports by officials. I must make it clear that no case of bad treatment has been brought to my notice by a constituent or by anyone else. I think that I am right in saying that about 1⅓ million foreigners come to these shores every year. It must entail considerable organisation to examine them, to inspect passports and everything else. I think that we owe a debt of gratitude to the officials, the immigration authorities, who carry out their job extremely well and expertly, and to Home Office officials and the police.
There are two sets of regulations governing immigration, one being for aliens. They are reasonably strict, and I think rightly so. On the other hand, Commonwealth citizens can come here freely, and there are no regulations concerning them. I strongly favour that distinction, and I hope that it will be retained. Also I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that at every port, airport or point of entry to the country passport control, Customs and everything concerning passengers is made easy for the Commonwealth visitor and that he gets priority so that he knows that he is particularly welcome to Britain.

Mr. Martin McLaren: I rise to refer to one very limited part of the control relating to aliens in this country, and that is the record of visitors which has to be kept in hotels. I think that it would surprise many people to know that that is a control under the Aliens Order which applies not only to aliens but to every British subject who moves about in his own country.
Article 19 (1), as amended, of the Aliens Order provides:
Every person of or over the age of sixteen years who stays at any premises to which this Article applies shall, on arriving at the premises, inform the keeper of the premises of his full name and nationality.
Later, the application of the Article is stated to be
to any premises whether furnished or unfurnished where lodging or sleeping accommodation is provided for reward.
That includes every hotel and boarding house in the country. This is the statutory origin of the book which we all know so well and in which on arrival everyone has to write down his name and nationality. If a person fails to do that he is guilty of a criminal offence under the Aliens Order. I venture to think that, in the year 1960, that is a burdensome control.
This provision of the Aliens Order, if it is needed at all, ought to apply only to aliens and not to British subjects moving about in their own country. I feel that it is no longer a necessary part of the control of aliens, and I do not think that the control of aliens should be such as to harass and burden ordinary English people moving from one place to another in their own country, whether on business or holiday. I ask my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State to look at this provision which, I think, would make either John Bull or Lord Palmerston turn in his grave.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: As one who has taken part in these annual debates on many occasions, I should like to say that I welcome the opportunity which this Measure gives us of reviewing year by year the policy of the Home Office in its treatment of aliens. A number of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have pointed out that, from a Parliamentary point of view, it may be unsatisfactory that the powers under which the Home Secretary acts with regard to aliens are not enshrined in permanent legislation but depend upon an Act passed at the time of the First World War and Orders in Council made thereunder.
I think that we would all agree that, from the point of view of purity of procedure, it would be more desirable if permanent legislation were enacted, but,


nevertheless, I think that we must recognise that the present practice which has gone on for about forty years, anomalous though it is, has a certain pragmatic sanction. It enables us to review the policy of the Home Office in a more effective way than we could if there were an annual review. One knows from comparison with other matters that annual reviews of policy are by no means always satisfactory.
Looking back over the debates of recent years, at any rate, it is noticeable that the debates on this subject by no means follow a uniform pattern. Almost every year some special and distinctive question has arisen in the previous twelve months which causes the Committee concern. For example, in 1958 the Home Secretary made a very important pronouncement in which he intimated to the House a very considerable measure of liberalisation regarding the admission of those aliens who wanted to come here, not because they wanted to obtain a labour permit and to work here, nor because they were visitors, nor because they were the elderly or dependent relatives of aliens already here, but because they wanted as artists or writers or persons of culture to enjoy the hospitality of this country and spend their time and money here.
There was the year when the Committee had occasion seriously to criticise the conduct of the Home Office concerning a number of particular individuals—Pastor Niemoller was one and Dr. Pauling was another—individuals of distinction who had met with difficulties on arrival. I think that it was largely as the result of the debates at that time that the position of a large group of people was very considerably eased. If we did not have this annual debate we should be deprived of the pleasure of listening to the speeches which we have heard, including that of the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) who, I thought, rose primarily to protest against the anomaly that we were having this debate at all.
Moreover, we must remember that although, looked at from a purely formal point of view, the powers given to the Home Office by existing legislation appear to be highly arbitrary and illiberal, we are not really so much concerned with the formal statutory form of

the legislation. We are far more concerned with the way the policy is administered. Here I join with others who have paid tribute to the generally liberal and humanitarian approach of the Home Office and its officials in dealing with aliens problems. In many ways, I suppose, the Committee can take pride in the reflection that, on these occasions, we take such trouble to concern ourselves with the interests of a large group of people coming to this country who, ex hypothesi, cannot in an electoral sense be the constituents of any one of us.
I wish to put to the Under-Secretary of State several questions with which I hope he will deal in his reply. They are questions about the admission of aliens, questions about those who come under the au pair system, and questions about the deportation of aliens. First, I add my plea to those already made that there should be a relaxation in the present conditions in which dependent relatives of aliens already here are admitted. In that connection, I urge the desirability not only of relaxation but of letting the House of Commons and the public know as clearly and concisely as possible what are the principles actuating the Home Office at present in this respect. Some of us who are approached from time to time about particular cases would. I am sure, be grateful if we were able to answer with a good deal of confidence about what the attitude of the Home Office is likely to be in a particular case.
We know the general policy with regard to elderly relatives, but can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether there has been any change in the past twelve months? Are the categories of those who are admitted because they are dependants of aliens already here rigidly circumscribed by defined criteria? Is there any element of discretion available to the immigration officer, to the Aliens Department or to those in charge in the British Consulates overseas who have to advise before people set out whether they are likely to be admitted or not?
I wish to ask, also, about those visitors who come to this country quite genuinely as visitors and who then, during the period of their visit, find an opportunity to take up employment here. I appreciate quite well that, unless there are some clearly defined rules about this,


the door would be wide open to abuse. Without rules on the subject, people would be able to come under the guise of a temporary visit, obtaining leave to enter for that purpose, whereas, in fact, they might have at the back of their minds the intention to seek employment here. It is quite right that everything should be done to stop that kind of abuse. On the other hand, one does from time to time come across quite genuine cases of people who have come here for a visit and who, being here on a visit, may wish, for a variety of reasons, to stay. Such a person may, for example, wish to get married, or take up some employment which becomes available.
If in such cases the Home Office is satisfied that there is a genuine reason for transforming a temporary visa to land and be here into a permit from the Ministry of Labour to take up employment, is it in all cases necessary for the alien concerned first to leave the country and go back to the country from which he or she came, and then make a fresh application? Unless that is absolutely necessary, it ought to be possible to avoid the irritation and unnecessary hardship which is otherwise entailed.
5.15 p.m.
What is the Home Office doing with regard to the many foreign girls who now come to work in Britain on what is called the au pair system? I read in the Sunday Times last Sunday that Britain now has an intake of 40,000 au pair girls a year and that reports recently of exploitation have led the National Council of Women to press the Government to introduce protective legislation. It will be appreciated that I am not now arguing against the admission of aliens. I am urging that appropriate steps should be taken in this class of case to protect those alien girls who are admitted to the country. It is suggested by the National Council of Women that agencies should make absolutely clear to the girls concerned what will be their living conditions, wages, hours of work and duties here before they leave their homes, and that employers should be vetted.
I understand also that the Home Office has been asked to agree that the minimum

age for au pair girls should be 17, that women rather than men should interview them at the port of entry, and that there should be an officially approved letter given to a girl to show what is required of her. I do not believe that this requires legislation, although legislation might be required to compel local authorities to tighten up their system of licensing employment agencies. Since this particular problem regarding the admission of these aliens has been ventilated in the Press and brought to the notice of the Home Office, I hope that this is a suitable opportunity for the Minister to say something about it.
I come now to the power of the Home Office to deport any alien at any time, for any reason, or without giving any reason, and without being answerable to anybody. I can quite understand that the exercise of this power my be necessary as a long-stop safeguard for the protection of our country's security. I am sure that the Committee would be interested to know how many orders of deportation have been made during the last twelve months, in how many cases the order of deportation has been referred to the chief magistrate, and in how many cases the Chief Magistrate has made a recommendation different from that of the Home Office. I gather from an interjection of the Minister just now that, although there is no statutory obligation so to do, the Home Office has, at any rate in the last twelve months, although, I think, not previously, invariably acted on the recommendation of the Chief Magistrate.
That is all very well, but the Committee should now ask itself whether it is necessary for the Home Secretary to retain the drastic power of arbitrary deportation in all cases. Would it not be possible now to consider the aliens who are in this country as falling into two categories, at any rate for this purpose? Could we not distinguish between aliens who have been in the country for a minimum period of years—I do not mind whether two years, three years, or a slightly longer period of years is taken for this purpose—and those who have not been in the country for that period?
As regards those who have been in the country for a minimum period of years with the permission of the Home Office, either with or without a labour permit—


and, if with a labour permit, with one which has been renewed—and have come to regard this country, quite properly, as their permanent home, notwithstanding their alien status as non-British subjects, could we not say that they should not be exposed to the dreadful possibility of deportation, except in certain circumstances?
I suggest that of the circumstances in which the right of deportation should be retained there should obviously be the case of aliens who have committed a criminal offence and been recommended for deportation by a court of law. We all, I think, would agree that that would be reasonable.
One can understand that there are other cases in which deportation may be necessary. I then suggest that, unless there has been a recommendation for deportation by a court of law, the Home Secretary should not exercise a right of deportation in respect of an alien who has been in this country for, say, three years unless the alien has the right to present an appeal either to the Chief Magistrate or to whatever is the appropriate tribunal. The tribunal can then sit, let the alien argue the case, and reach a decision which should be binding on the Home Secretary. That would go a long way towards satisfying those of us who are proud, as I am sure that we all are, of the consideration the administration of this country has always shown towards aliens and are anxious that our reputation for liberal and humane treatment should be preserved and maintained.
That leads me, finally, to say a few words about the subject raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), namely, the formalities which occur at ports of entry. I hope, as he and other hon. Gentlemen have hoped, that something can be done to simplify the existing arrangements, reduce all unnecessary form-filling, and facilitate the ordinary flow of visitors into this country in order to make the first arrival by tourists as pleasant and attractive as possible.
I am aware of, and welcome, the relaxations introduced with regard to passports. On that subject, I venture to comment on what the hon. Gentleman

said. As I have always understood, any British subject has a perfect right at common law, which has never been taken away by Statute, to leave the country without a passport whenever he likes and to return to the country with or without a passport whenever he likes. As I understand it, that is one of the cherished rights which British subjects have always enjoyed at common law. I have exercised it. I have claimed the right to enter the country without producing a passport. One may have to satisfy officials of one's British nationality, but there is no difficulty about that in the case of most British subjects.
The production of passports has become very much of an irksome formality. Many people travel with out-of-date passports. They are perfectly entitled to do so if they are entitled, as I think they are, to travel without passports at all. No attempt is made as far as I know to check whether the passport is still in force or whether it belongs to the person producing it. The procedure has become very much of a tiresome formality and I doubt whether it still serves any useful purpose.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) has asked me to apologise for his absence. I want to thank him for having initiated the debate, because the Government welcome it even more than usual, owing to the fact that the past twelve months have been an eventful period in the history of our aliens' administration. It has coincided with the greater part of World Refugee Year, in which this country played an important part, of which we can be proud. Also, during the past twelve months we have had the first large-scale review for many years of our system of police registration under the Aliens Order.
I shall be making statements about both those matters. In due course, I hope to reply to as many as I can of the many points raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Swindon raised fifteen points which I noted, of which five at least were based on wrong assumptions. Others concerned other Departments for which I cannot answer today. That was true of other points raised in the debate. In any matter on which I am unable to reply or which concerns another Department I will, as the case demands, either


write to the hon. Member about it or get in touch with my colleague in the Department concerned.
First, I want to join my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) in the tribute he paid to the work of the Immigration Service, because there has again been a very large increase in the number of passenger arrivals and departures through our ports. Immigration officers have dealt with large numbers of people and, in spite of what has been said in the debate, I want to place in on record that, as far as my evidence goes, they have dealt with those large numbers of people with humanity, courtesy, and the minimum of fuss.
The hon. Member for Swindon and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked me to state the numbers of aliens and others who have been coming and going through our passport control. The latest figures I have are for the year ended 30th September of this year, when the total number of passengers each way, British and alien, was well over 11 million. That was an increase of over 1 million during the year.
During that period no less than 1,698,160 foreigners came here. That was an increase of nearly a quarter of a million, or 14·6 per cent., over the corresponding period of the previous year. That is a striking and satisfactory indication of the popularity of the United Kingdom as a holiday and tourist centre, although not all those who came where tourists, of the attraction of this country to foreigners generally, and of our liberality in admitting them here.
Of the total number which came, 2,618 were refused leave to land. That is an exceedingly small proportion of the total. It is only one out of every 650 who tried to come.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Barnett Janner: Can the Minister say whether any of those 2,000-odd who were refused permission had been given by our consuls in the various countries from which they came authority to say that they would be allowed to land?

Mr. Renton: I cannot answer that question without notice, but I will try

to find that out and let the hon. Gentleman know.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked me to break down the figure of those refused leave to land. The figure breaks down in this way: 182 had no travel document; 23 had no visa in circumstances that required a visa; 905 had no labour permit, although it was clear that they came here with the intention of getting work; 399 had insufficient means of support and no labour permit; 137 were stowaways; 43—which is a very small number—were rejected as undesirable on medical grounds; 375 were seeking permanent residence but were ineligible for it under our policy, and 264 were what we call "technical refusals" connected with transit procedure. They had no return-ability to their own countries and were not claiming political asylum, and were in no sense refugees. The remaining 290 were undesirables of miscellaneous kinds.
I think that if I get rid of all the figures it may help a good deal. The next figures which I have been asked to give are those of foreigners who have been deported. There was only one hon. Member who suggested that we might get rid of deportation. I think we must all agree that no system of aliens control could work without the sanction of deportation as a last resort. But deportation is on a small scale.
In 1958, 131 were deported, and in 1959 the number was 86. In the first ten months of this year the number was 93. I think it is material for me to point out, as so often the expression is used about people being deported by the Home Office, that, of course, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary takes responsibility for everything that is done in the Home Office and by the Immigration Service. This is one matter where the Statute requires his personal attention and signature and that is on a deportation order.
In answer to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, I would point out that this is a matter—and I think I am right in saying the only matter—in which the Secretary of State for the Home Department has any jurisdiction with regard to Scottish affairs. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question I must tell him that aliens Who are picked up in Scotland and are required to be deported


are, in fact, deported by the Home Secretary and not by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Grimond: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman two questions? The first is that as, technically, there is only one Secretary of State or, rather, that as all Secretaries of State act for each other, is this a particular onus placed on the Home Secretary or upon a Secretary of State? Secondly, does the appeal to the Chief Magistrate—this discretionary appeal—operate in Scotland as well as England?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that the constitutional position is that there is only one Secretary of State, but there is also only one Immigration Service—not one for England and Wales and another for Scotland. As a matter of administrative convenience the Home Secretary has always been responsible to Parliament for the whole of the Immigration Service. That is the reason why, in practice, he has dealt with this question of aliens control, including deportations. But, of course, if the Home Secretary were to be absent abroad another Secretary of State, including the Secretary of State for Scotland, would be fully empowered under the constitution to act on his behalf. What I described earlier was the practice. The hon. Member——

Mr. Fletcher: What about the Chief Magistrate?

Mr. Renton: I am coming to that. Since 1956, an alien who has been here for two years or more is given the chance to make representations to the Chief Magistrate, and that applies to those who are picked up in Scotland as well as to those who are picked up in England and Wales, unless, of course, deportation was recommended by a court, in which case there is no right to make representations to the Chief Magistrate, nor is there a right in a security case.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) suggested that we should reconsider the question of deportation and divide foreigners into two types, those who have been here for, say, two years and those who have been here for a shorter time. Of course, that is already done to the extent of distinguishing between those who are allowed to make

representations and those who are not. The hon. Gentleman agrees with us that, in any event, those whom the court recommend for deportation should be deported. However, I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said and will inform my right hon. Friend about it.
With regard to what has happened since this right to make representations to the Chief Magistrate was conferred in 1956, the position is this: 67 aliens have been eligible to make representations and of those only 34—just half—have availed themselves of the opportunity; 31 cases have actually been heard by the Chief Magistrate, and in 26 of them he confirmed the proposal to deport. That means that there have been five cases in which reference to the Chief Magistrate prevented deportation. There is no case in which deportation has taken place where the Chief Magistrate did not recommend it. So that whatever is the constitutional and statutory position about this opportunity to apply to the Chief Magistrate, in effect it has been regarded by us as a form of appeal against deportation and respected as such.
I should like to add that, as there were over 400,000 aliens registered with the police at 30th June this year the number of deportations, is really very small. Of course, some of the aliens deported had come here for short visits and had never been required to register with the police. One therefore has to look at the matter in the light of that even larger number.
This, perhaps, is the right moment to attempt to answer the question put by the hon. Member for Swindon, about how many aliens there are in this country. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was referring to the short-term aliens as well, because at the peak of the year—during the summer months—there are always over 100,000 alien visitors in this country at any one time. But the number changes every day throughout the year.
As I say, the number of aliens registered with the police is 400,000, and the figure that I gave in the debate last year, of there always being at least half a million aliens in the country, is one which can stand bearing in mind, and that number has been increased by the total number of aliens coming here.
Next, I want to respond to the invitation of the hon. Member for Orkney and


Shetland. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he is the only hon. Member who has spoken in the debate who was good enough to give me notice of the points that he intended to raise. It was much appreciated. This is a brainwashing experience for me, and prior notice of this sort helps me in my task on these occasions.
World Refugee Year was a great success and we should congratulate all those private individuals in this country who initiated it, including my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway). We should record the remarkably enthusiastic and generous response of our people in all parts of the United Kingdom. The total sum raised throughout the world was £28½ million, two-thirds of which was from voluntary sources. The United Kingdom contribution, £8¼ million, was the highest of any country. The United States came next and Norway and New Zealand also made important contributions.
Her Majesty's Government made it clear that the United Kingdom contribution was to be mainly financial and £½ million came from the Treasury towards the £8¼ million, and that was in addition to the much larger sums which we contribute in various ways each year for helping refugees all over the world.
Since the war, this country has accepted more than a quarter of a million refugees.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn): I was not here earlier and I do not know how wide the debate has gone, but I hope that the Minister will not go too wide on the question of World Refugee Year, which seems to me not to arise on this issue.

Mr. Renton: The point I was about to make concerning World Refugee Year is strictly relevant to the debate, because it concerns visas given under the Aliens Orders for refugees coming from the Continent of Europe.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. I have taken part in these debates for the last fifteen years and it has always been the custom for this to be an opportunity given to and taken by the Government to account for their administration of the law with regard to aliens, the treatment

of aliens, and what has been happening to aliens. World Refugee Year concerned aliens. Surely the Government should not be deprived of the traditional opportunity of giving us an account of what they have done.

The Temporary Chairman: Before taking the Chair, I took the opportunity to look up one or two previous debates and I noticed that on more than one occasion the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) had been called to order. I said to the Minister that I hoped that he would not go too wide on that aspect, because we were not discussing World Refugee Year; but what the Minister has now said puts the matter in order.

Mr. Renton: As I said, the Government's contribution was intended to be mainly financial, but as part of World Refugee Year we decided to admit those refugees in Europe most in need of help. Those were chiefly handicapped refugees unable to emigrate to other countries because those countries would not have them and families which had been debarred from emigration because at least one member of the family was handicapped.
The United Kingdom Committee for World Refugee Year, however, asked us to help the United Nations High Commissioner for refugees in his attempts to clear all European camps of the hard core of people whom it had been found impossible to settle elsewhere. We readily agreed and the Home Office co-operated with the British Council for Aid to Refugees in making the detailed arrangements. Those arrangements have consisted of getting three groups of people away from the camps and settled in this country.
First, 200 refugees, mainly from camps in Italy, were chosen a year ago and arrived in this country earlier this year. Secondly, in the light of the experience gained in choosing that first batch, we revised the criteria for selection and included those suffering from incurable disability, but who could be cared for by their families, and also those suffering from curable T.B. or other curable illness which had previously debarred them from coming.
Using those criteria, set out very fully in a Written Answer earlier in the year,


a selection team from this country went to Italy, Austria and Germany during May and June to interview 1,228 refugees whose names had been submitted by the United Nations High Commissioner. A disappointingly high proportion of those did not even turn up for interview, but 673 were interviewed and of those 495 were accepted. We granted visas to them and all, but two or three came here.
5.45 p.m.
The United Kingdom Committee then asked Whether a further effort could be made and, although World Refugee Year had meanwhile come to an end, we readily agreed that a selection team should go to Germany and Austria when the United Nations High Commission and voluntary organisations had had a chance to prepare a fresh list of candidates and do some necessary preparatory work. The team will be going abroad immediately after Christmas.
Thanks to the generosity of the voluntary organisations and of individuals in this country, adequate sponsorships have so far been found. Dr. Lindt, who recently retired from being United Nations High Commissioner and whose work for refugees I am sure every one will agree to have been outstanding, has paid tribute to the liberality of our criteria in selecting refugees and to the work of our selection teams. He said that the flexibility of our approach had made our scheme unique and even revolutionary and that it further illustrated, to use his words,
the generosity of a nation which had already done so much during World Refugee Year.
We have also had a most appreciative letter from the Federal German Government.
The number of refugees who may come here as the result of the final phase of the operation cannot yet be estimated, but it may well bring the total to well over 1,000. However, we are not thinking in terms of a specific target, for our purpose is not merely to think of a number, but to meet a real need, namely, the clearing of the camps of the hard core of handicapped cases.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked me whether refugees admitted under the World Refugee Year arrangements were subject to any restrictions as to movement and employment.

The answer is that they are not and that they can take any employment that they wish.

Mr. Grimond: I am extremely grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the information he has given. Can he say whether the hard core of handicapped refugees coming here indefinitely will become British citizens, or will have documents as refugees?

Mr. Renton: They are in the same position as others whom we admit for permanent or indefinite residence. They remain aliens and they will be expected to be in possession of a document showing what their status is. That is all. I will deal with registration in a moment, but it would be outside the terms of the Order to discuss their possible applications for naturalisation.
Now I come to the important question of registration. As I announced in last year's debate, we have been engaged in a thorough study of the existing provisions of police registration of aliens to see whether changes might now be made without detriment to our general aliens control, the need for which is inescapable. The present provisions have been in operation for more than forty years and at this stage they could not have been drastically modified without full consideration by all concerned. Ordinary tourists and holiday visitors do not have to register at all if they are staying here for three months or less.
Last year, well over 1½ million foreigners landed here and the vast majority did not have to register. The number who came and who had to register for the first time was fewer than 80,000. Altogether, there are at present over 400,000 foreigners who are registered with the police and required by the Aliens Order to notify changes of permanent address and of employment. Those 400,000 foreigners fall into two distinct groups, and I would invite the Committee to try to follow me in understanding the difference between those two groups because it is vital to the consideration of the matter.
The first group are those who wish to stay here longer than three months, but whose stay is, nevertheless, on a temporary basis. Many of these are people with Ministry of Labour permits, and we


expect them to stay in the job that they have been given permission to take, or in some other job approved by the Ministry of Labour during their first four years. After that, of course, they are free to take any job they like.
Then this first group also includes other foreigners who are here on a temporary basis for longer than three months, such as students and girls who are staying here au pair. In this first group, altogether there are about 125,000 people registered. All of them are subject to conditions and we have to ensure that their conditions are complied with. This can best be done with the aid of the police.
Registration is not a great burden. Once an alien has registered, he does not have to report regularly to the police, as sometimes people loosely and, indeed, wildly suggest, but merely has to tell the police of changes in personal circumstances, such as change of employment or of permanent address. We are, however, taking the opportunity to introduce two or three minor relaxations with regard to this first group of people who were here for more than three months, but on a temporary basis.
The period allowed for reporting changes will be extended from three to seven days, and when the Home Office has granted a foreigner an extension of stay he will no longer need personally to report this to the police. That will save the re-registration which normally follows after the first year of employment in this country.
I come to the other and larger group. They are those foreigners whom we have accepted for residence here permanently or indefinitely. They are not subject to any restrictions on the length of time that they may stay here, nor on the employment that they may take. These people number over a quarter of a million, and they include many refugees who made their homes here among us and became a valued part of our community. They also include many foreign spouses of British people, and they include those people who, on various compassionate grounds with which the Committee is familiar, we allowed to come here for permanent residence and without being subject to conditions. A large proportion

of the people who are permanent residents in this second and larger group that I have mentioned are those who came here originally on labour permits and who, having been here for four years, have had the restriction on their choice of employment removed.
It is the registration of all these people—over a quarter of a million of them—whom we have accepted for permanent residence and whose removal would be contemplated only if they grossly abused our hospitality, that we have had particularly in mind in considering whether or not they should continue to have to register with the police. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has decided that the public interest does not now require this large group of people to be subject to the degree of supervision which police registration involves. He has, therefore, decided that they should be exempt altogether from registration. They will no longer be required to report changes of address or employment, and their only future obligation will be the simple one of still retaining a document giving evidence of their identity and status. It is an obligation which they have always had and it is not unreasonable bearing in mind that, after all, they are foreigners.
This substantial relaxation of policy will benefit more than two-thirds of the foreigners now registered with the police, and will do so without detriment to the effectiveness of our system of aliens control. The necessary amending Order has been drafted and will be laid before the next meeting of the Privy Council. We hope to make the change effective from 1st January and the Order will be laid before the House at the first opportunity in the usual way.
In due course, all those benefiting from this concession will be told of the change and they will also be told of the arrangements to be made for formal endorsement of their registration certificates showing their new status. I hope that this decision to exempt over a quarter of a million resident foreigners from police registration will be generally welcomed, for it is a prominent measure of liberalisation of our control and will, no doubt, be recognised as such.
One effect of the changes that I have mentioned is that Ukrainians, with whom my hon. and gallant Friend the Member


for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) have been concerned, will be exempt from registration, for they are all long-term residents and it follows that the police will no longer have to concern themselves with a nationality entry in their registration certificates. This will remove the source of irritation to which my hon. Friends referred last Session.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North-West (Mr. McLaren) asked me about hotel registration, and I must tell the Committee candidly that we are not altering the arrangements relating to hotel registration. Naturally, in the course of our study of the registration provisions under the Aliens Order we took account of the provisions relating to registration by hotels, but my right hon. Friend's conclusion, after taking account of the views of the police, is that registration in hotels is of help in enabling the authorities to learn the whereabouts of particular aliens and is of considerable value to the police in their immense task in the prevention and detection of crime.
But what about British subjects having to register as well? It is very difficult, it seems—I have been into this very closely—to insist that aliens should register in hotels unless everyone who goes to a hotel is asked to register. But there are adequate safeguards to see that British subjects are not lightly prosecuted for a possible technical offence under these provisions, and indeed the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions would be required before any prosecution took place.

Mr. Paget: What has been worrying me is where the power to make the regulation requiring a British national to register comes from.

Mr. Renton: There is a power in the Aliens Order. I will ascertain which one it is before the end of the debate. It is a power which applies not only to aliens but also to British subjects.
This is a convenient moment for me to deal also with a point which is linked to the point just raised by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to the power to require British subjects to show their

passports. That also is a power which is derived from the Aliens Order; Article 7 of the Order refers to it.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I quite agree that it is in the Aliens Order. I can find that. What I cannot find is the power to put it in the Aliens Order. The Aliens Order can be made only pursuant to the authority delegated by the legislation which we are being asked to renew, and all I can find in this legislation is that it gives power to make Orders for the regulation of aliens. I cannot discover any power to make Orders for the regulation of anyone else. It is true that it is done, but it seems to be done entirely ultra vires.

Mr. Renton: I gather that the hon. and learned Gentleman is challenging the vires authority of the Order. I am not sure whether this point has ever been challenged in the courts.

Mr. Paget: I raised it last year.

Mr. Renton: If this is the point which the hon. and learned Member raised last year, I think I replied to him pointing out the position. I will get my file of what I call "Pagetry", because the hon. and learned Member has raised a large number of technical points, many of which, I think, are out of order. I have them all noted. I explained to him that he must have been referring to Article 20, paragraph 5. The vires of that was challenged in the case of Cox against Ede.

Mr. Paget: What was the name?

Mr. Renton: The name was Ede. I think that he was Home Secretary at the time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) asked me whether I would go to Harwich and watch the early morning boat arrive one day. I am now in the happy position of assuring him that I did so on 22nd September. It was the boat to which he referred, from the Hook of Holland. The number of aliens who landed, at about 7 a.m., was 157, and there were also 324 British people on the boat, making a total of 481. I saw them start to come off the boat and I saw them going through the passport control. The whole operation took 33 minutes, and I do not think that is too bad.
One is always sorry for anyone at the back of the queue, but even if we had double the number of immigration officers, which I do not think we could conceivably justify, there would still be a bit of a queue and somebody would still be at the back of it. All these people were cleared in good time to catch the first of the trains to London. The control was completed by 7.30 a.m., and the first train left at 7.42 a.m.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I thank my hon. and learned Friend and congratulate him on his enterprise. There have, however, been cases in the winter, no doubt owing to bad weather, in which passengers have missed the trains, but I thank my hon. and learned Friend for the trouble which he has taken in this matter. The position shows a vast improvement over that of a year or so ago.

Mr. Renton: I do not wish to mislead my hon. Friend. I was about to concede this—that the boatload which I saw, being in fairly late September, was a lighter boatload than sometimes arrives, and at the peak of the holiday season, when these boats are very crowded, a vast number of people have to be taken through the control. Although we do what we can to get relief immigration officers from places where the traffic at the time is not as busy, necessarily the excellent performance of this occasion will not be maintained all the time. We keep a watch all the time. The Immigration Service does its best.
Having been not only to Harwich, but also to Dover, which takes the largest number of passengers, and to London Airport, in recent weeks and seen the passengers going through the control, I have been impressed by the expedition with which they are handled. The occasional difficult case which arises is not allowed to hold up the whole of the queue, because if it is obvious that someone has arrived whose case presents difficulty he is given a chair on which to sit and his case is dealt with at greater leisure after the main queue has passed through. It is a great problem, but if we are to have immigration control at all, and I think it is generally conceded that we must, then it must be effective.
The hon. Member for Swindon asked about visitors' card arrangements and how far agreement on this subject had been reached with various other countries. This is a Home Office matter, and I think that I am in order in replying that agreements have been reached with Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and the German Federal Republic. Agreements have not been asked for by Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Negotiations are not yet concluded with Italy and France. The question of reciprocity and of the issuing of identity cards or something in lieu of them to United Kingdom subjects is a matter for the Foreign Office, but the then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs gave a Written Answer, at the end of July, saying that the matter was still under inter-Departmental consideration.
The hon. Member for Islington, East asked me about au pair girls and referred to the approach on the subject which was made to me by the National Council of Women. I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I give a rather full answer about this, because it is important and, although I shall shortly write to the council, I feel that I ought to put my views rather fully before the Committee. Some interesting and instructive comments have appeared in the Press about this matter, which has excited a lot of attention. Since the National Council of Women saw me, and made various suggestions about this problem, we have been making extensive inquiries and have given very sympathetic consideration to the possibility of making a change in the existing system.
Under the present arrangements, which have prevailed for many years, we allow women and girls over 15 to come here to learn the language while staying with British families. They are not allowed to undertake employment, but they are allowed to perform light household duties. In return, they receive free board and lodging, and in many cases some pocket money. The approximate number of girls who come here in this way is difficult to estimate. In spite of all that has been said about our system being elaborate, it is not so elaborate that we can distinguish the exact number who come for this purpose, but I do not think


that there can be fewer than 5,000 here at any one time. That is a mere estimate on my part.
Some proportion of them get into various kinds of difficulty and trouble while here, not always through the fault of the families with which they stay. A small proportion of the families no doubt have abused the system and made the girls lives unpleasant and uncomfortable, but some of the girls who come here are not always of a satisfactory type. The families with whom they have lived were not to blame for what happened.
I want to emphasise at once that, according to the best information we can get, the proportion of girls who, for one reason or another, find themselves in difficulty or danger, or are exploited by their hostesses, has been very small in relation to the total number coming here. This in itself is not, of course, a reason for complacency. We have to think not only of the welfare of the girls themselves, for whom the families and countries from which they come have some responsibility, but also of the good name of our country. We have a tradition of humane treatment of visitors, and if a considerable number of foreign girls were exploited or exposed to danger our reputation would suffer. Our inquiries have included consultations with Swiss, Dutch, Austrian, German and Italian welfare authorities.

Mr. Paget: Spanish?

Mr. Renton: Not Spanish. I am not quite sure why not, but there is a good reason.
We have had these consultations in an effort to do all we could to get to the bottom of this and have also consulted the various social agencies in this country, religious and otherwise, and other Departments concerned. As a result of the consultations we have a fair picture of the situation as it now is. We therefore do not feel—my right hon. Friend indicated this in reply to a Question put by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) the other day—that any further special inquiry is called for at the moment.
The National Council of Women made some suggestions which have been referred to in this debate. The first was that the lower age limit of au pair, which

is now 15, should be raised to 17. On present information we are not convinced that such a change is necessary. Our inquiries suggest that few girls under 17 run into moral danger, or are exploited by unscrupulous hostesses. Comparatively few foreign girls under 17 come here on an au pair basis and most of them do so under arrangements made by parents or friends. If we raised the age to 17 we should exclude those girls who come under satisfactory arrangements to learn the language when they are of an age to learn it easily, and it would cause hardship. So far as we can see it would not do a great deal of good to others if we prevented them coming.
Another suggestion made by the National Council with which I had much sympathy is that, to secure au pair arrangements and to see that they are properly understood by the parties to the agreement, there should be a standard letter of invitation to the foreign girl. I do not think that this would be likely to have any great effect in stopping such malpractices as exist. Some years ago a system rather like it was tried out by die Home Office, but it did not work well and did not produce satisfactory results.
We know from past experience of the use of documents more formal than the model letter which has been suggested how easy it is for people who want to disguise the facts or to misrepresent them to do so. At the moment, the immigration officers judge from informal correspondence in the possession of the girl when she arrives, and from conversation with her, whether the arrangement which has been made is a bona fide one. I am sure that this is likely to be a more effective method than the use of stereotyped letters.
The National Council also asked that there should be effective control of employment agencies. As hon. Members are aware, there is an I.L.O. Convention concerning fee-charging agencies which would require them to be registered. That Convention cannot be ratified and implemented in this country without legislation. Extensive consultations about such legislation have been undertaken and the question of its introduction at a convenient opportunity is being kept in mind.
The fourth suggestion made by the National Council was that au pair girls


should be interviewed by women immigration officers. There are no women immigration officers. The service is staffed by men because many of the duties are unsuitable for women. It would be extremely difficult to organise it on the basis of some of its members doing only duties of a particular kind. Apart from that, it would be impracticable at the ports, because it would mean that au pair girls would have to be isolated from the stream of arrivals and dealt with by women officers. We have no evidence that they are not being satisfactorily dealt with by the men. Therefore, we do not feel that this is a suggestion we can act upon at present. I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to say this.
As in previous years, my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn), whose views on all constitutional matters I always greatly respect—indeed, I recollect with great pleasure collaborating with him sometimes when we felt that legislative forms were not being well observed—the hon. Member for Swindon and others, all suggested that we should replace our present law on the subject of aliens by up-to-date permanent legislation. In previous years we have conceded the need for this, but have pointed out that, however unsatisfactory the position may be from the technical point of view, the need for permanent legislation cannot seriously be considered as urgent. That is still the position today.
I would point out that any legislation on this subject would have to retain the advantage of flexibility which the present system allows. Circumstances are changing all the time and policy has to be evolved to meet the changing circumstances. I say this in support of our view that the matter cannot be considered urgent. Nevertheless, I take note of, and will express to my right hon. Friend, the views which have been expressed in this debate. Surely the real issue before us today, apart from the opportunity we have of reviewing the administration of the Aliens Order, is whether or not the present control over foreigners should lapse and to what extent policy should be adjusted. It is right that we should use this opportunity in that way.
6.15 p.m.
As my right hon. Friend who is now Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance said some years ago when replying to one of these debates, this country is still a magnet to vast numbers of people who would like to come here for one reason or another, but whose presence here would create difficult social and economic problems. We have high standards of living and a system of social security of a very high order and we wish to maintain these things but we could not maintain them if we admitted every foreigner who felt inclined to come and live here.
Employment opportunities are not unlimited and the interests of our own people make it necessary to preserve a firm control over employment of foreign labour. Nevertheless, we claim that our policy has been as generous, liberal and humane—as some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Islington, East, have been good enough to acknowledge—as we could possibly make it. I think that this is proved by the large number of foreigners who, in fact, have been admitted here since the war and who we now allow to live here as long as they wish.
Although I have made an extremely long speech, and I do not like making long speeches, I am in a dilemma, for I still have not replied to a great many of the points made in the debate. I have no doubt that it would be the wish of those hon. Members who have spoken that I should attempt to deal at least with some of them.
The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), who was good enough to acknowledge our generous treatment of foreigners, suggested that we should enlarge the categories of relatives who should be admitted, categories which I explained in some detail last year. Candidly, I doubt whether there is much between us, but I should like to study carefully what the hon. and learned Member said. I cannot give an undertaking to oblige him, but I should like to consider carefully the exact implications of adopting his suggestion. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield asked whether I would convey to


the other Ministers concerned the question of various forms which have to be filled in. I will, of course, do so.
In the course of what I have already said, I have dealt with nearly all of the fifteen points made by the hon. Member for Swindon. He made several statements that were based on quite wrong assumptions and I wonder whether I may briefly correct one of them in particular. The hon. Member said that the immigration control broke down in the case of the Hungarian refugees in 1956 and 1957 and had broken down in the case of the Southern Irish. That was an extraordinary statement to make. The Hungarians were intentionally let in as refugees, which they obviously were. As for the Southern Irish, they have never been subject to our immigration control other than that to which British people are subject and the position of the Southern Irish has been governed by special legislation throughout.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Islington, East and other hon. Members whether we could consider the embarkation and landing cards which are filled in and it was pointed out that other countries do not have them. My fairly recent experience of travelling to one very near other country was that they do have them. These cards are a great saving of time on arrival at the port. So long as the card has been filled in by the foreigner, he has only to hand the card to the immigration officer, who, in many cases, can see at a glance the purpose of the visit. That enables the passport to be stamped quickly. It is that sort of thing which enabled, for example, the 157 aliens to be checked in 33 minutes when coming off the boat at Harwich. Without the cards, there would be serious delay at our immigration control.
I am in the happy position of not having to detain the Committee any longer. I am grateful to hon. Members who have spoken in this debate and I shall be interested to pick up later other of the various points which have been made.

Mr. Weitzman: Will the hon. and learned Member please give us one more piece of information? Can he give us the reference to the case of Cox v. Ede, which he quoted? I cannot find it reported.

Mr. Renton: There is no doubt about its having been reported. I will try to find the reference to the law report for the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. Paget: We are extremely grateful to the Joint Under-Secretary for his long and careful speech. In particular, I am delighted at the recognition at last that aliens, generally speaking, when they are here can be under the same law as everybody else. I have quoted before in these debates—and I have always been greatly impressed by it—the law of Exodus:
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
That is a deep and profound principle and it is one the approach to which we welcome.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) who moved the Amendment and who has expressed his regret at not now being here, and said that he was mistaken in his remarks concerning the Hungarians and the Irish to the effect that in these instances the aliens law had broken down. The hon. and learned Gentleman has entirely misunderstood what my hon. Friend was saying. He was not saying that in these instances the law had broken down. He was saying that these instances demonstrated that the law was unnecessary, that if it was unnecessary to apply it to the Southern Irish—and, I might add, unnecessary to apply it to the West Indians—if it could be waived for the Hungarians and a sudden large immigration of refugees could be accepted. The whole thing would have broken down if the various people had remained under the ordinary tight restrictions. That is what my hon. Friend was saying.
I now turn to what seems to me to be the most important point and the one which has been swept aside in a rather cavalier fashion. It is whether this temporary legislation, this legislation by regulation, is good enough or whether we should have a law upon the subject. The Home Office says, and with a good deal of justification—my hon. Friends and I agree with a great deal of it—"Look how humane we are. Look how kind we are. You do not want legislation." That is what every monarch says. It is what every colonial Power says to the


demand for liberty—"Our rule is just. It is better than the rule you can provide yourselves. Our rule is humane. You do not need liberty. You do not need the law. Our rule is a kind rule."
The fundamental question is whether people are to live under the law or under an arbitrary will. The argument is an age-old one and is always the same. To some extent, it is better to live even under a bad law than under no law at all, even though the arbitrary will under which one exists is a kind will. That is the general point which we have sought to advocate.
Here we have a law which we are being asked to renew. It is a law of quite Draconian power. It puts half a million people under the unrestricted will of a single man to incarcerate without trial and without limit of period, to banish, to break families, to expel. We are asked to give that Draconian power to a single man. That is precisely what the Bill does. We are told, "Ah, but this great power is so kindly, so justly, so humanely administered that it does not matter that absolute power should be in the hands of this man over the lives of half a million people." Of course that is relatively true. But it is still not a good enough answer.
6.30 p.m.
When the hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Yes, we accept the need and demand for a law but we do not accept its urgency", I say that in this sort of circumstances, of which the urgency has been postponed year after year for nearly half a century, there is a certain point where the urgency of liberty emerges. The time has surely at last come when something should be done. Look at this Government's legislative proposals. They are pretty trivial, are they not?
I would urge upon the Government once again what I urged last year with reference to another case where one had dealt year by year with temporary legislation. That case was the Army Act. Simply because we obstructed, the Government came and asked terms; and from that emerged a system which has worked quite extraordinarily well. We set up a Select Committee of the House working in parallel with a professional committee of the War Office. We made the proposals, they went to the professional

committee, they came back to us, Parliamentary draftsmen were attached to us, and at the end of some eighteen months' work we produced a Bill, and that Bill was accepted by the Government and brought to the House without one single Amendment. The Bill which we made in that Select Committee was accepted and brought by the Government without the alteration of so much as a comma, and was accepted by the House. I believe it is a good Act and has vastly improved both the administration of the Army and the liberty of the citizen in relation to military law.
Why not do the same here? Why not set up a Select Committee of the House—there are plenty of people who will serve on it—to work with a professional committee which could bring forward the Ministry's difficulties? Let us get the Measure into form. Then, I believe, it will be very possible to present it as an agreed Measure.
It is not only the liberties of foreigners, although I regard them as important, which are affected. It is also the liberties of our own citizens. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) brought out the question of those regulations which are alleged to impose obligations on our own citizens to register in hotels, obligations to produce passports, and so on. The Government can make a regulation only in so far as they are empowered to do so by an Act of Parliament.
The empowering Act is the Act which we are being asked to perpetuate. It is under that Act that the Aliens Order is made. What that Act provides is that
His Majesty may … by Order in Council impose restrictions on aliens
or any of us, and later on, amongst other things and subject to those governing words, he might prohibit
aliens from landing in the United Kingdom
and various other things. It is all subject to the governing words
may impose restrictions on aliens.
We are now told of a case called Cox v. Ede. It does not appear to be in the index——

Mr. Renton: I was very incautious, because I allowed myself to be drawn into giving an answer while still on my feet without checking my reference. The


position is this. I was asked about the vires of Article 19 dealing with hotel registers and I said that the vires of it had been decided in the case of Cox v. Ede in which case the vires of Article 20 dealing with the deportation orders was decided. I must apologise to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Paget: That, of course, is entirely and completely off the point, because we are not dealing with deportation orders, and I would say that it is almost clear beyond dubiety that the regulation, in so far as it seeks to impose a duty upon a British citizen to register at an hotel or to produce a passport, is ultra vires. It is quite plainly outside any power which is granted by this Statute, and the Aliens Order purports to be made under this Statute.
I do not think these sorts of things, these details, are so very important in themselves. What I am saying is that it is exceedingly important that for this sort of reason we should clarify the thing. Let people's rights depend upon the law instead of this odd evasion of the law in things too trifling for people to challenge in the courts.
I will just give one other reason why this law needs tidying up. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that according to the law as it stands now it is still a criminal offence for any alien under the age of 46 to have a name. Here is what is provided:
An alien shall not for any purpose assume or use or purport to assume or use or continue after the commencement of this Act"—
this is 1919—
the assumption or use of any name other than that by which he was ordinarily known on the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen.
Any alien born after 4th August, 1914, is committing an offence by having a name. That, surely, is a sort of muddle which does need clearing up.
Take another of these things:
No alien shall act as master, chief officer, or chief engineer of a British merchant ship"—
unless he has acted in that capacity in a British ship
at any time during the war.
Which war? This was 1919. Are we here excluding the very gallant men who served in the Merchant Navy and faced the U-boats in the last war? I do not know.
This is the sort of muddle that exists, and the Under-Secretary of State says it is not urgent. For nearly half a century it has not been urgent. Surely it is time to get on with it. I feel that we ought to give the Government notice that next year if this is not done we must seek to revert to the method which worked in the case of the Army Act, which seems to be the only way we can kick a reluctant Government into doing their duty, and that is by the weapon of obstruction.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. William Hannan: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 10 and 11.
This Amendment, if accepted, would have the effect of refusing the Government permission to continue the Education (Exemptions) (Scotland) Act, 1947. The Amendment affords the Opposition further opportunity of expressing our hostility to that Act and gives the Government further opportunity, on the other hand, of trying to justify it or of amplifying the statement which the predecessor of the Joint Under-Secretary of State made in a similar debate last year.
This Act has for its purpose the granting to local authorities of power to exempt Children of over 13 years of age in Scotland from attending school so that they can engage in the seasonal potato harvesting. To many people in this day and age it comes as rather a shock to learn for the first time that such a practice still continues, diminishing though it is, and they cannot understand why it does when in England and Wales the practice was given up about ten years ago.
The reason for the Act was the frightful difficulty in the immediate post-war years of keeping our industry going and carrying out rehabilitation. But however difficult the conditions were in those years and however necessary was the Act then, many people, including the Government, who made a qualified admission last year, have now come to recognise that the Act ought to go. We have thought so for several years and have taken the opportunity from this side of the Committee year after year of voicing our opposition to it. In view of the Government's assurance last year during a similar debate I do not intend to go over all the arguments again. Most


of us are conversant with them, but I think that we owe it to the Committee to refer briefly to some of the facts.
In 1949 there were 47,000 exemptions to children over 13 years of age to enable them to engage in potato harvesting, and the local authorities were given power to grant those exemptions. In 1955 the figure was 45,000. In 1957 the figure came down rather rapidly to 22,000, and in 1958 it was 16,000. Last year we were delighted to learn that the figure was down to 10,900. We were very pleased with the progress and we had hoped that in the interval since this subject was last debated the Government would have tabled an Amendment designed to rescind the Act. We on this side of the Committee have held all along that if the Government had simply said that they intended to act, other arrangements would have been made by farmers to get their harvests in.
The first question that I should like to ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is whether at this stage he can give the number of exemptions granted during the past year. We recognise that this debate follows very closely on the harvesting season and that the hon. and learned Gentleman may have difficulty in giving the figure, though we should be grateful for it. This debate is initiated once again to show that there is no complacency on our part in this matter and that we still want to know whether it is absolutely necessary to continue this Act until 1962. Even with the smaller numbers engaged in this work there is still inequality between one area and another. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) mentioned during a similar debate last year that Dundee was the only city in Scotland that still provided some children for the potato harvesting.
There is another form of inequality. A predecessor of the present Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland admitted last year that 75 per cent. of these children came from our junior secondary schools, compared with only 25 per cent. from the senior secondary schools. This was precisely the point on education that we used to make—that, in the main, these children came from homes where parents did not have the same high interest in the future well-being of their children and

that far too often the attraction of a temporary relief to their economic hardship was sought through the children being exempted to enable them to do this work. The Rose Committee on the Employment of Children in the Potato Harvest, which reported in 1956, condemned the educational damage that was being done, and the social and moral danger to many of these children.
I should like to come to the immediate problem and refer to the assurance given on 11th November—a significant date—of last year by the then Joint Under-Secretary of State. He assured us that the Government were now able to foresee the abolition of the scheme within "a reasonable time". What was the reasonable time? He thought that three years were a reasonable period so that farmers could be given due notice to enable them to make alternative arrangements.
6.45 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman's actual words were:
Accordingly, I can tell the Committee that we propose to seek the approval of Parliament to the re-enactment of this Measure now"—
that was last year—
and for the next two years—that is, for the next three harvests—but not after the 1962 harvest.
Later, the hon. Gentleman said:
With that assurance and the certainty"—
I ask the Committee to note that word—
of the ending of the scheme within a measurable time, running down from the notified exemptions of roughly 12,000 at the rate of about 5,000 a year over the next three years, we hope to end the scheme in 1962."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November, 1959; Vol. 613, cc. 509–510.]
On the face of it, that seems clear enough. First, the hon. Gentleman starts with that assurance and certainty and before the end of the paragraph that assurance and certainty become a hope to end the scheme in 1962
It was on the strength of that assurance, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East, who had moved an Amendment, withdrew it. Our purpose today is to ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will reaffirm without any qualification or equivocation the assurance that was given last year. Is it certainty or is it


hope? Can the hon. Gentleman use other language to make quite clear that the Act will come to an end? If he can, we shall feel more satisfied that those in agriculture to whom the Act applies will find means now to deal with the residue of children whose education is still being damaged.
I am encouraged by a report which I saw in today's Glasgow Herald that the Perth and Kinross Education Committee has recommended to its county council that in future no schools shall be closed for the potato harvest but that pupils shall be exempted on a reducing scale for the years 1961 and 1962. This is one of the largest potato-growing areas, yet the education committee there has accepted the position. We should like to hear from the lips of the Joint Under-Secretary, who has lately assumed office and from whom some of us have a little hope that some of the Government's pledges will be carried out, that this pledge will be honoured. We hope that we shall have that assurance in his speech today.

Mr. J. A. Stodart: I think that it would be fair to say that there have been two schools of thought over many years on this matter. Indeed, in my recollection two schools of thought were expressed by hon. Members opposite in a debate similar to this last year. I well remember the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) giving it as his opinion that lifting potatoes for a fortnight or three weeks did children no harm.
I have grown potatoes for many years and have experienced the invaluable help which school children have given, particularly during the war years, in gathering the crop. I am in no doubt that, on balance, it is undesirable to interrupt education and take children away from school, but I disagreed with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) when he said that this debate follows closely upon the potato harvest. Alas, it does not follow on it, but is taking place in the middle of it, in this most disastrous year for both the corn and the potato crops in Scotland.
I say to hon. Members opposite that to lift 128,000 acres of main crop potatoes during October—and it is very rare that one can get started before

October, as the corn harvest has not finished, and once November arrives there are dangers of frost—would need 40,000 to 45,000 adult gatherers. If, however, we are prepared to run the risk of lifting throughout November, then, clearly, with the longer period, we could bring that number down to about 25,000 to 30,000.
I must confess, however, that though I admit the undesirability of taking children away from school, I have a certain amount of misgiving as to what is to happen after 1962, unless another source of labour can be provided. Of course, one thinks immediately of the possibility of using the unemployed. But it is generally true to say that the black spots of unemployment are in areas where main crop potatoes are not grown in very large acreages.
There is no lack of desire by farmers to get a machine which will eliminate the need not only for schoolchildren but for hand labour altogether. Many thousands of pounds have been invested in search of it, and I am glad to say that I believe that progress is now being made. At the recent harvester trials I noticed that only 4·8 per cent. of the potatoes lifted by a mechanical harvester were severely damaged. The rate of damage has been one of the things that we have been up against in finding a machine that would take the place of manual labour. That rate of 4·8 per cent. is astonishing when compared with the 9·5 per cent. damaged among the potatoes picked by hand.
The cost of machine lifting was estimated at £4 17s. an acre compared with £9 8s. by manual labour. Obviously, therefore, there is every inducement to find an alternative so as to do away not only with children being taken away from school, but with the potato squads as we know them.
The hon. Member for Maryhill said that alternative arrangements must be made by 1962. If there were no other alternative, would he accept the growing of, say, only half the crop of potatoes in the country? That would be an alternative arrangement that farmers could make, but it is one which would have to be weighed up very carefully by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State, in company with his


colleague who looks after the agricultural interests of Scotland.
While I hope that alternative arrangements will be possible, I beg the hon. Member for Maryhill to give us some idea of the alternative labour which he proposes could take the place of the children who have been of such invaluable help to the farming community.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: In following the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), I am glad to note that he supports this side of the Committee in regretting the break in education that potato harvesting causes our children. We also regret the important circumstances in which the potatoes have had to be gathered this year. But that is something rather unusual, and we should not discuss this question on the basis of special circumstances, but of normal circumstances. I shall refer later to what the hon. Gentleman said about alternative sources of labour.
This has been described previously as the hardy annual debate in the House of Commons. However, a certain quantity of the wind of change has been through St. Andrew's House, and we now have a new Joint Under-Secretary of State looking after this subject. I sincerely hope that he will bring a fresh mind to this terrific problem and will give us the assurance that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) has asked for.
Debate on this subject is also a hardy annual among education committees, particularly those which are called upon to release substantial numbers of children for potato harvesting. Reference has already been made to the unfairness as between different authorities. Fife has been called upon over many years to provide quite a large number of children for this work, while the capital city, Edinburgh, has gone completely scot-free from making any contribution towards lifting potatoes.
In last year's debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) said that as far as he knew—and being a farmer himself he was in a good position to know—very little physical harm had come to children who had gathered potatoes. I believe that

that is a matter of opinion. A great deal depends upon the class of home from which children come, and, in the main, those called upon have come from poorer sections of the community, for the simple reason that they have been required by their parents to go in order to supplement the family income.
Some hon. Members opposite may not accept that view, but that very largely is why many of the children take the opportunity. If they had been properly clad and if the conditions laid down in regulations by education committees had been properly observed by farmers in the past, some of the hardships and physical difficulties which have emerged during harvesting would not have been encountered by many of the children.
7.0 p.m.
As the Joint Under-Secretary stated last year, 75 per cent. of the children come from junior secondary schools. It seems in some way a mockery that the Government have in recent weeks been telling us how much they are concerned with further education, particularly for the children who leave school at 15, for they, in the main, are the children who are required to be exempted from school attendance so that they may gather potatoes. It is children of that type who are more in need of the full educational opportunities which are available than the more gifted children.
The Department requires a minimum of 400 attendances per school year, and yet in this respect it is quite unconcerned in giving permission to education authorities—in some cases forcing it on education authorities—to release children for this purpose. It will be very wrong if education is regarded as a frill which can be very easily interrupted purely at the whim of the farmer.
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to tell us that the farmers have taken notice of what was said by his predecessor last year, that it is the intention of the Department no longer to release children for this purpose after 1962. I also hope that tonight the hon. Gentleman will be able to assure us that the farmers have started to take sufficient steps to ensure that they will not come to the Department in 1962 pleading for an extension of the scheme, because at the present time, and judging by the remarks of the hon. Member for


Edinburgh, West that seems very likely to happen. I appeal to the Joint Under-Secretary to make sure that the farming community knows that it is up to itself to start now and prepare for the 1963 harvest which will have to be ingathered without the assistance of school children.
Another point about the 75 per cent. of these children who are away from school for this purpose is that many of them in present circumstances are being taught in oversized classes, classes which according to our present regulations are far too large to give the children the type of education to which they are entitled, and, in very large measure, by unqualified teachers. Sufficient damage has been done to education in the past from these aspects without increasing the damage by continuing attendance exemptions beyond 1962.
It is a very sad reflection in these days when we hear so much about Polaris missiles, intercontinental ballistic missiles and world-wide telephone conversations with the aid of earth satellites, that we cannot find the answer to what is in comparison with those things a very simple problem. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West appears to dissent. He may not think it is a simple problem, but I am sure that ten or twenty years ago our people did not think that we should by this time have made the tremendous achievements that we have in the past two years in launching satellites and having telephone conversations with their aid.
Consequently, what we require is a still greater amount of money for research to enable us to find a machine for potato lifting. As has been said, there have been considerable improvements over the years. Therefore, we hope that by 1962 the answer will have been found and that the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to tell the House, "I am very pleased to say that no longer will school children be required for potato lifting."

Sir James Duncan: The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) has made a speech in which he rather set the interests of the farmers against the interests of the children. At any rate, that is the impression he gave me. That is a pity, because the hon. Gentleman, who was my election

opponent some years ago, has had the experience of reading past debates—he referred to this as a hardy annual—and he must know that it is not really a contest between one set of interests and another.
I assure the hon. Member that the farmers are just as anxious as anybody else to avoid having to employ child labour for lifting potatoes. As the hon. Member far Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) said last year, child labour is not cheap, it is not very efficient, but it is still more efficient than any machine that we have. If we could only get a machine which was 100 per cent. or even 85 per cent. efficient in all circumstances, we should all buy it.
For the first time I have tried, this year, to lift my potatoes with a machine, and I am very disappointed to have to tell the Committee that it was not a success. I will not disclose what type of machine it was, but I have seen three tried out and all of them broke down. None was satisfactory. Besides that, they were all extremely slow. There are machines which will work quite satisfactorily indeed in good weather on flat land which has no stones, or very few stones, on it, but when we come to the more difficult land on hillsides, which has stones on it and which is as wet as it is today, we really have not yet got a machine which will do the work.
Last year, my hon. Friend's predecessor in office said that the scheme would come to an end in 1962. The experience this year of appalling weather conditions—in my part of Scotland 30 per cent. of the potatoes are still in the ground—makes one wonder a little whether the Government ought not to be a little more "cagey" about repeating that assurance this year.
I want to be frank about this. If we are to grow potatoes—I believe that it is necessary to grow roughly the present acreage in future, not only to provide potatoes for the housewife at a reasonable price, but also to provide seed for England and abroad—we must get down, in practice, to the problem of how else we are to get them up. It will be generally agreed that we now know how to grow potatoes. We put them in the ground, we have the right fertilisers, and we know how to restrict the size of the, crop or increase it, but the minute we


try to get them out of the ground the problems arise—particularly this year, when one cannot get them out of the ground at all.
If there are surplus unemployed somewhere else, will the Government face the expense of hostels in Angus for the unemployed of, say, Glasgow? I do not know. Broadly speaking, there is not a surplus of unemployed in the Angus or other potato-growing areas which could be used. It is a fact that a certain number of unemployed are used. Adult gangs are used regularly, in addition to children, and they are working now, but if one asks the employment exchange for another gang one finds that no more are available. All the available men, and even the women, are out. Consequently, if we are to find adult labour for the potato lifting period the Government will have to face the fact that they may have to reopen hostels in order to bring in the unemployed, perhaps even from England, to get the potatoes lifted.
The alternative is machines. Last year, I paid a tribute to the inventiveness of manufacturers and the money that they were spending to this end. I have been disappointed this year. I can say with absolute conviction that every farmer whom I know in my part of Scotland is only too anxious to get a machine, and will pay from £600 up to even £1,000 for an efficient machine which will do an 85 per cent. job. If he could only get a machine which could be used in all weathers and all soil conditions that would be the solution to the problem, but, quite frankly, with this year's experience, I do not see that happening by 1962.
I say to the Government that if they are to stick to 1962 they must put up an alternative method of gathering potatoes. I believe that unless they do that, we shall materially reduce the acreage of potatoes grown in this potato-growing part of Scotland.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) called this debate a hardy annual. I have it in my notes that it is a repeat performance, for many hon. Members, perhaps, a too frequently repeated performance As hon. Members

know, this is my first appearance, and I will begin by assuring hon. Members opposite that we are confident that it will at least be my penultimate appearance on this subject.
To the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), I cannot add anything to what my hon. Friend said last year, but I cannot detract from it, either. It is our intention to ask the House next year to renew this law once again to cover the 1962 harvest. That will be the last harvest for which releases will be given, and the last time that the Government will ask for this expiring law to be revived. After that, it will finally be allowed to expire.
I must make it clear that I refer only to the exemptions, as my hon. Friend said last year. After 1962, it will still be open to education authorities, as it is at present, through the system of staggered holidays operating in some of our counties, to arrange their school terms so as to allow school children to take part in potato harvesting during the holidays. That is a matter entirely for the local education authorities.

Miss Margaret Herbison: In the debate last year the Joint Under-Secretary of State stressed that this was a matter purely for the local education authorities and the hon. Gentleman this very moment has just stressed the same matter. Is he not aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland is the Minister of Education for Scotland? If it is found that staggered holidays are bad, from an educational point of view, will not the Secretary of State take some responsibility for examining this matter in Angus, Perth, and Kincardineshire, where that is done? I am not asking him now to say that there must be no staggered holidays, but he ought to be quite sure that damage is not done to the children of the poorer families in those areas.

Mr. Brooman-White: It is our intention to stick to the present position, whereby it is completely open for local education authorities to make what arrangements they think best, similar to those which they have at present, if they consider that would be in the best interests of agriculture in the area and that they can do it without adversely affecting education to any serious extent.

Miss Herbison: Who will be the judge whether or not there is an adverse effect on education? The then Joint Under-Secretary made the same point last year. Who will judge it—the people who are to make the decision about staggered holidays, or the Secretary of State and Her Majesty's inspectors of schools as they go round and see the results?

Mr. Brooman-White: The hon. Lady must not press me to go beyond last year's statement, which still stands, and which is the statement on which the agricultural communities have been asked to plan ahead to meet this, from the agricultural point of view, difficult problem.
All hon. Members concerned with this subject know very thoroughly by now the argument that from the educational point of view, these arrangements are regarded as undesirable; and also, from the agricultural point of view, the arguments which have been stressed by my hon. Friends the Members for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) and Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) why it has been, and for the moment still is, necessary to carry on with these arrangements.
I can also say to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs that the agricultural authorities are confident, and have expressed their confidence, that they can meet this programme by a variety of arrangements.
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs said that, in this age of rocketry and space travel, we should find a machine which could do the simple task of separating the "spud" from the mud. The answer to that is that such a machine has not yet been found. Having re-emphasised the general undertaking of future policy which my hon. Friend gave last year, I can only add a few words in connection with the peculiar difficulties which have been experienced in the current season. It had been our intention to let the number of school children released for this work decline substantially in this year—in fact, to taper it off to disappearing point by 1962. Though this was our intention, like so many other things this season, it fell a victim to the weather.
The original number notified for release was 8,500, compared with an

original notification of 11,800 last year, though slightly fewer actually went last year. I cannot give the hon. Member for Maryhill the final figures for this year, because owing to the prolonged season and the fact that the potatoes were not gathered, some work has continued, and no interim report has been made by the local education authority. What happened this year was that about 8,000 exemptions were originally approved, and it rained and continued to rain until the National Farmers' Union for Scotland said that the work was being held up and made representations to us for more help. An additional 3,600 exemptions were then allowed, but these were limited to five days per child, in order to cause the minimum inconvenience to the educational programme. The last of the second batch of exemptions concludes this week.
For a gloomy year, there is some satisfaction in the fact that, despite the abnormality of the weather, we have been able to dispense altogether with exemptions in 10 counties and three big cities, but we have not been able to do so in Dundee, which is so very close to the main potato growing area. If, through a lucky personal chance, some hon. Members do not know already how frightful this summer has been, they may appreciate the extent of the farmers' exceptional problems if I tell them what happened in one or two areas.
In Angus, after three weeks' exemptions and holidays the average number of days worked was nine, and a large proportion of the crop, as my hon. Friend has said, was left in the ground. That was also about the figure for Perth and Kinross. Aberdeenshire got in only about 4 days' work out of three weeks and in that county since emergency exemptions were authorised at the beginning of this month, there had up to Monday of this week been only a couple of days worked. In Kincardineshire, potato lifting holidays are the rule, but by the time the children were due to return to school only half the crop was lifted. Three hundred exemptions for five days were, therefore, authorised, but as in the case of Aberdeen, only a couple of days had been worked.
I am making this point to emphasise that this year was altogether exceptional,


and the fact that emergency measures were taken this year does not have any bearing on the general undertakings which I reaffirmed at the beginning of my speech. In the light of that, I very much hope that hon. Members will not wish to press their Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATES (SALARIES)

7.20 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): I beg to move,
That the Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 1st November, be approved.
The object of the Order is to increase the salaries of the metropolitan police magistrates, other than the Chief Magistrate, from £3,800 a year to £4,100 a year.
The Order is made under Section 1 (4) of the Judicial Offices (Salaries and Pensions) Act, 1957. Section 1 (1) of that Act brought the salaries of the Recorders of Liverpool and Manchester, county court judges and the metropolitan police magistrates into line with the increases in the salaries of the higher civil servants which had been made in 1956, as a result of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service—the Priestley Commission.
In order to avoid the need for legislation in future, Section 1 (4) of that Act enabled any further increase in salary to be made by means of an Order made by the Lord Chancellor, with the consent of the Treasury, provided that a draft of the Order had been laid before Parliament and approved by Resolution of each House.
In the early part of 1959, the Coleraine Committee, which makes recommendations on the salaries of the higher civil servants, recommended a number of increases and it fell to me, when I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, to announce the aceptance of them by the Government on 24th April, 1959. I then said:
Corresponding increases will be awarded to certain Judicial Officers in England and Wales and in Scotland whose salaries have of recent years been adjusted with those of the higher Civil Service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1959; Vol. 604, c. 69.]
The increase which is now proposed is in accordance with that principle.
In other words, the object of the Order is to make the same relative increases in the salaries of the Metropolitan Police magistrates, other than the Chief Magistrate, as have been made in the salaries of the higher civil servants, which have been recommended by the Coleraine Committee this year. The House will


remember that the acceptance of those recommendations was announced on 5th August, 1960.
The present Order is limited to the ordinary metropolitan police magistrates and it does not include, as the last Order did, increases in the salaries of the Recorders of Liverpool and Manchester, the county court judges or the chief metropolitan police magistrate. That is because on this occasion the Coleraine Committee limited its recommendations to increases in the pay of higher civil servants whose salaries were in the range of £2,000 to £4,100; and the two recorders now get £5,250, the county court judges and the chief metropolitan magistrate £4,400 a year, so that they lie outside the range of the recommendations which have been accepted. Civil servants in grades in salary ranges corresponding to those higher salaries have not had increases.
The House will see that the Order does not deal, either, with the salaries of other judicial posts which lie within the salary range of the recommendations of the Coleraine Committee, judicial posts such as official referees and masters and registrars and other officers of the Supreme Court. That is because the salaries of such officers which fall within the range of the present increases have already been increased, as they can be, by administrative action. The salaries which it is now sought to increase, on the other hand, fall on the Consolidated Fund and cannot be increased by administrative action, but can be increased by an Order under the 1957 Act.
I ought to tell the House that the estimated annual cost of the increase is £8,400.

7.24 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: The Solicitor-General, as he always does, has most lucidly put before the House the reason which has impelled him to lay this Order. It seemed to me that the reasons were not only lucidly explained but, in their nature, obviously completely adequate. I do not think that I will be advancing the good purposes of the House by dilating further upon the Order. It is an Order which, I am sure the Solicitor-General will agree, is not of epoch-making impact on the political or legal firmament, but it is very important to the individuals concerned to

whom it is a matter of justice. Speaking for myself, I cordially welcome it.
I know that it is not retrospective, as the analogous provisions for the Civil Service are to the date specified in the Coleraine Committee's Report, or, if not specified, envisaged. I gather—and, no doubt, the Solicitor-General would be able to confirm this—that that is because he has no power to make the Order retrospective under the provisions of Section 1 (4) of the 1957 Act. If he has no power, clearly it cannot be done, but otherwise I feel that he would think it appropriate to treat these magistrates on the same basis of generosity as the Civil Service is treated. No doubt he will assure me that that is the reason and I shall remain perfectly content, if regretful, if that is the case.

7.29 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: By leave of the House, may I say that I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) for his acceptance and support of the Order. It only remains for me to advert to the point which he raised about retrospection. He is perfectly right in saying that in the case of civil servants who were covered by the Coleraine recommendations salary increases were made retrospective to 1st July in accordance with the recommendations.
Salaries of judicial posts which can be increased by administrative action can be similarly and were increased retrospectively to the same date. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, there is no power to make retrospective the increases sought under this Order. The main Act on which it depends does not give any such power. Therefore, however much one may regret it, this Order does not seek to give any retrospection in respect of these increases.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 1st November, be approved.

Orders of the Day — STATISTICS OF TRADE

Census of Distribution (1962) (Restriction on Disclosure) Order [draft laid before the House, 22nd July, in the last Session of Parliament], approved.—[Mr. N. Macpherson.]

Orders of the Day — CUMBERNAULD NEW TOWN

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) (New Town of Cumbernauld) (Special Development) Order, 1960 (S.I., 1960, No. 1305), dated 27rth July 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th July, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.
Many of us who have visited the new town of Cumbernauld, and I have visited it regularly over the last three or four years, are impressed by the excellent work which has been done by the Development Corporation. In many respects the architectural design and layout strike us as being of an excellent character, but, naturally, in such a development as this in a new town there are critics of the layout of some of the houses and of some of the designs. That is to be expected. It is no doubt because of those criticisms that the Secretary of State for Scotland felt impelled to introduce this Order.
We feel, and I am sure that this is felt also by many local authorities in Scotland, that the taking away from the local authority of the function of approving or of being consulted about, the lay-out of this new town is a blow at the functions of elected bodies. After all, although the Development Corporation is, as it were, an agent of the Secretary of State for Scotland, or an agent of the Government, in creating this new town, the town has, nevertheless, been developed within the planning area of the Dumbarton County Council.
From the point of view of our town and country planning legislation, any development in that county is subject to approval by the planning authority, which is the county council. If a private developer wished to develop some properties within the County of Dumbarton, he would have to seek the approval of the county council. If the county council did not approve the plans, or the layout of the properties to be developed, the private developer would have recourse to an appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland. If the appeal were accepted, there would be a public inquiry. People independent of the local authority and independent of

the State Department in Edinburgh would be called before the inquiry. There would be a reasonably impartial inquiry into the objections by the planning authority and the reasons put forward by the private developer as to why he should proceed with the plans he had laid down.
As I am sure happens in most cases, such a public inquiry would satisfy the general public that democracy was at work and that no one was being steamrollered over rough-shod by the central Parliament, that is, by the Government, whether it were in Whitehall or in St. Andrew's House.
Although many people appreciate the splendid work being done in the new town, they nevertheless feel that the county council and the district council have today, and increasingly in the future, to provide and manage many services in the new town, and that it is therefore wrong to withdraw any powers from such authorities. They feel that these authorities should be consulted before decisions are reached about the architectural layout or development of a new town.
I know that when the development corporation sets out plans for the development of various housing schemes or for commercial buildings within a new town it has to get the approval of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and having got his approval, it has to submit its plans to the planning authority. But if the planning authority, which is the Dumbarton County Council, turns down some aspect of the planning, the Development Corporation then appeals to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and it seems to me that the Secretary of State for Scotland is obliged to support the Development Corporation because he has previously approved the plans submitted to him.
I have always thought that that is an extraordinary situation. I think that the same thing should apply to the Development Corporation as applies to a private developer. There should be a local public inquiry into why there is controversy over some aspect of the planning.
During my visit to Cumbernauld I received many complaints from residents. I received hundreds of them and I took them up with the management in Cumbernauld. The complaints were invariably dealt with in a reasonably


short time. However, I do not remember receiving a single complaint from the residents in the new town about the houses. Most of the people whom I met liked the houses which the Development Corporation was building. Obviously people living in one style of house in one part of the town may not like some other style of house in some other part, but one will always get that. Different people have different ideas of the sort of house in which they want to live, but I can honestly say that I did not receive a serious complaint by the residents in the new town about the houses being built for them.
The complaints were mostly about the provision of shopping facilities and general amenities. Those facilities are not easy to provide at the beginning of the development of a new town. They come in as the town grows, and as the town grows the amenities improve.
There are, however, some aspects of the development of the new town which must concern the Dumbarton County Council. There is the siting of schools and the lay-out of them. The provision of playing fields and various social amenities must also be considered. Are we to understand that in future, because of the operation of this Order, the Development Corporation will be able to site playing fields or social amenities or a health centre where it likes, and ignore the views of the county council about where they should be sited?
I have here a copy of a letter dated 2nd September, 1960, addressed by the Department to the County Clerk of Dunbartonshire. It includes a paragraph couched in certain terms. Many people who have to deal with Departments of State and Ministers are getting tired of this sort of expression. I sometimes wonder whether it is not likely to become a sort of rubber stamp. The letter states:
I would like to stress, on this, the first occasion on which we have had consultations under the new procedure, that we do value the experience and knowledge which the County Council and its officers can bring to bear on these questions and that, because these three developments have been approved—
That is, the three housing developments at Muirhead:
it does not follow that the County Council's comments will never find favour.

The county council's comments have not found favour so far, and I have a faint suspicion that, notwithstanding this excellent language, this beautiful phrasing—it is all very courteous—once the Secretary of State has approved the proposals of the Development Corporation and the county council raises some objection, that phrase will crop up every time. The man in St. Andrew's House will know best.
Many hon. Members from time to time have tried to get planning permission for all sorts of people who want to develop, but more often than not we fail hopelessly. In this case, when a State corporation—and the Development Corporation is an instrument of the State—comes up against some difficulty with the local planning authority, the county council, the officers of the State use a heavy steamroller to eliminate it.
This goes very deep, indeed. We all complain—and in a democracy we should complain—when the general body of citizens are apathetic at elections. Here we have a town and country planning committee in Dunbartonshire appointed from the elected representatives. That planning authority performs its function—and I am not concerned whether it is misguided or correctly guided. In performing its function it runs up against a big corporation set up by the State. That causes the corporation some inconvenience—I do not doubt that. The corporation having been caused that inconvenience, the Secretary of State looks through the legislation and finds that he has power to stop hese elected people exercising their democratic rights.
That is very dangerous. Democracy is very important in these times. We in this country boast that we stand and fight for freedom, and for an attitude of freedom to individuals, or groups of individuals who organise together to pursue a legitimate purpose. Surely, it is legitimate for this county council to make its views known, and to insist that its voice is heard on what is happening in a development area such as the Cumbernauld New Town.
Houses in that area are being built 40 ft. apart. It is a new style of development. They are separated from each other by huge wooden fences. When I


first saw them I wondered whether I had, by mistake, got into the married quarters of the Highland Light Infantry. That is what they looked like to me. They are very good houses. Many Army officers would like married quarters like that, but a great number of citizens would not like to live in them for the next fifty years of their lives.
They are not attractive, although there is no difficulty in letting them because they are attractive to many people. For instance, I can quite understand that many people from certain parts of Glasgow would be delighted with them, and I do not doubt that those who have moved into these houses are delighted.
The houses are developed in such a way that there is no provision for vehicular traffic of any kind. They are serviced by walks and by very narrow pavements. The idea is that in the ultimate development of the new town the vehicular servicing will be done by means of a large arterial road system. The lay-out is wonderful, as many hon. Members who have seen the model will agree. The cost will be anything from £3 million to £4 million. The efficiency and the ultimate advantage of this form of development now going on is absolutely dependent on that large arterial system and central development being carried out at some time in the future.
It might turn out, however, that at some time in the future a Chancellor of the Exchequer may say to the then Secretary of State for Scotland, "I understand that you intend to spend £3 million or £4 million on some magnificent development in the centre of Cumbernauld. It is too expensive. The country is in a bad way." That might happen just after an election—it certainly would not happen before.
The voters in the new town, who regularly see this beautiful model—it is a beautiful model, and a wonderful concept—may be tempted to cast their votes in the wrong direction, in the expectation that the work will be done, but experience has shown us, as democrats, that Governments very often change their mind once they are in office. If that concept were to break down, if that development were curbed

or seriously cut, this type of housing lay-out in the new town would not be satisfactory. The one is absolutely dependent on the other.
It was, perhaps, from that angle that the local planning authority was so concerned. I do not know—I only surmise. It may be that the planning authority was afraid that at some time in the future, knowing what a raw deal Scotland so often gets from the central Government, this proposed development might be curbed, and a difficulty would arise with this high density building—and I know that the architects have a big problem there because of difficult contours.
We feel that the Secretary of State should withdraw this Order, and that an effort should be made by the Development Corporation and the county council as the planning authority to reach agreement on the form and style of planning and development, particularly in the provision of social amenities for future residents. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will take back this Order, and reconsider the proposals he is making.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley.

Mr. Thomas Steele: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it unnecessary to second the Motion?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: A seconder is not required.

7.50 p.m.

Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: I find myself, or perhaps more accurately, I found myself, when I first read the case which has been presented to hon. Members by the Dunbarton County Council, very much in sympathy with the proposal which has been made by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence).
It seemed to me—I will be quite frank with the House because I have undergone a change of mind—to be somewhat cavalier treatment of the local planning authority, the Dunbarton County Council, which has approved the outlined development plan of the Cumbernauld Development Corporation and has shown itself perfectly willing to give


planning approval for about nine-tenths of the planning applications which were made to it for neighbourhood units in the new town area, that, having raised objections on the ground of the space between houses being unacceptable by the best modern standards, or on grounds of amenity, and so on, and having referred back a few cases where it disliked the proposals that had been made, it should be, as it were, elbowed aside and told, "We quite understand that you, as the planning authority, object to some of the proposals that are made in respect of this new experiment in high density planning. We are, therefore, going to absolve you from your responsibility as a local planning authority, and we shall put the whole responsibility of the planning of the new town on the plate of the Development Corporation. While we would always be glad to consider any representations that you may make to us and to consider your views, we will absolve you of responsibility for any part of the planning within the new town area."
That seemed to me to be somewhat cavalier treatment, particularly since it has been done in the case of Cumbernauld but has not been done in the case of East Kilbride and Glenrothes, the other two Scottish new towns. It seems to me reasonable that the elected representatives of the people in that county should feel themselves slighted by treatment of that kind.
I have followed the case put by the hon. Member and I think that he put it very clearly, if he will allow me to say so. He posed the dilemma with which we are all faced. It is that the New Town Corporation is a creature of the Secretary of State. The plan, as the hon. Member has reminded the House, has been drawn up in close consultation with officers of the Department. This new conception of landscape, of having pedestrian precincts with few access roads, while making full use of the contours so that although houses are very close together they do not directly overlook each other—at least, the main windows do not—has been carried through at every stage with the officers of the Department.
So it would be natural if the county council, as the planning authority, objected to any single aspect of what is

proposed that there should be a feeling that it is no good having a public local inquiry, no good the Secretary of State appointing a commission to go to Cumbernauld to hear both parties to the dispute because, in the end, the decision has to be made by the Secretary of State, who has approved the plan and, therefore, he is bound to do obviously what he will do, which is to support the authority when it comes to a public inquiry. That is the dilemma.
I think that the Secretary of State has, for many purposes, to be two people. In his capacity as head of the Department and in approving the development plans and associating with his officers very closely in every stage of the planning he is occupying one of his capacities. Then, if the local planning authority were to object to perhaps a minor detail in that plan and could not resolve it by meeting the Development Corporation officials, as so often happens in practice, and it comes to a public inquiry, I think that when the report of the commissioner comes on his table at St. Andrew's House he assumes a judicial capacity and has to judge fairly between two points of view.
I have been as fair as I can in pointing a very difficult dilemma which I think the House and my right hon. Friend are facing. I say now, as I said at the outset, that at first I allowed my sympathy to be with the Dunbarton County Council which believes that what is being done is wrong. Then I inquired in some detail into the practice in England and Wales—and although I do not think that we in Scotland should always slavishly follow what is done in England and Wales—I found that the procedure which will be brought about in the case of Cumbernauld, if this Order is carried into effect, is, in fact, the procedure which has been followed for many years in the case of many new towns in England and Wales and which is, in practice, working very smoothly indeed.
It appears that whereas, at the outset, there was friction in some cases between county councils as the planning authorities and the development corporations, the threat of delay because of that conflict of opinion having been removed by the introduction of the same kind of Order as the House is considering tonight has led to a better feeling between


the planning committees of the county councils and the planning officers of the development corporations, who have not, in any case, I think, had serious difficulties in getting together and resolving differences of opinion around the table. I hope very much that that may happen in the case of Cumbernauld.
I believe that it could happen once this initial question is settled of who should ultimately be responsible for planning. I believe that it would be best for Dunbartonshire and for the new town of Cumbernauld—which, after all, is an exciting and interesting experiment—if these parties could get together, as sensible men can, to try to resolve their difficulties.
I do not think that there is any doubt that a number of people—I confess that I am one—do not like the idea of dense development. I think that there is a compromise which is possible and I do not think that development need be so dense that houses are within 30 feet of each other as, I understand, is likely in some cases to happen at Cumbernauld. I can quite understand the county council's planning authority not liking to see this departure from recognised and approved planning principles. If it made a case as strongly as it liked to the officials of the Development Corporation I feel sure that accommodation would be reached, as it is always reached between sensible men and women in such cases.
I am at a loss to understand why this is being done in the case of Cumbernauld, but not in the case of Glenrothes, which, I understand, has asked for it and made representations to the Secretary of State. I do not know why it should not be done for East Kilbride. If this is the right procedure for Cumbernauld which, with some reluctance, I am prepared to believe is the case, why is it not the right procedure for Glenrothes or East Kilbride?

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Steele: We welcome the speech of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley). I think it an indication of the concern about this matter that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to support us. I feel that this is a different matter from other

new towns either in Scotland or south of the Border. During the course of my speech I will deal with some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman, but I should like to begin by drawing attention to the fact that we always criticise the Explanatory Note in such Statutory Instruments as this. The Explanatory Note in this case does not make clear what is the purpose of the Order. It is misleading because it gives the impression that the Order gives planning permission for the development of land in accordance with proposals approved by the Secretary of State when in fact the real purpose is to dispense with the need for the Cumbernauld Development Corporation to seek the permission of the Dunbarton County Council for its plans and development proposals.
All that it does is to take away from the committee of the Dunbarton County Council the powers which it already possessed. It is not for us to make long speeches tonight in support of this Prayer. It is for the Minister to justify the Order. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns referred to what has happened South of the Border. In 1950 the then Government decided to bring in such an Order for the English new towns, but they wrote to the County Councils' Association in England and Wales asking for its views. The association opposed such an Order which it thought was totally unnecessary. Despite that the Order was laid.
The Secretary of State for Scotland at that time did not take the same view. He did not lay a similar Order. All Secretaries of State, particularly those in a Tory Government, tell us that they believe in trusting the local authorities and that the local authorities should have the necessary powers. But that is what happened, and the first question we have to ask is why has this Order now been laid?
I wish also to ask the Minister whether he inquired from the County Councils' Association of Scotland about its attitude. Did he seek the advice of the association and did the members express their views to the Minister? Or are we to be told that such an item as this, which takes away planning powers from the local authority, will go through this House without any inquiry being made from the association which


represents the local authorities in Scotland? We must have an answer to that question.
We must be told why this Order is limited to one new town. Why has Cumbernauld been singled out for this distinction. Whether we like it or not, there is an implied criticism of Dunbarton County Council because the Secretary of State for Scotland is not introducing a principle. If he were, it would apply to all three new towns in Scotland. If something has gone wrong; if the county council has failed in its obligations; if it has not discharged its responsibility, the Minister must tell us and explain why this Order is laid.
The county council never raised any objections to the new town of Cumbernauld. Can the Minister tell us where there was a lack of co-operation? The county council was conscious from the beginning that this meant that new obligations would be placed upon it. Even before members of the Corporation were appointed the county council wrote to the Secretary of State suggesting that all applications for planning within this area should be sent by the county council to the Secretary of State to get his observations, so that it would not give permission for some plan which might affect the new town. To this the Secretary of State agreed and surely that is an indication that the county council was co-operative.
I have examined all the correspondence in connection with this matter and tried to find out why the Government have laid this Order. The only evidence I can see is contained in a letter from the Secretary of State to the county council, referring to a meeting which took place on 14th June, which said:
Sir,
I refer to the Minister of State's meeting with representatives of the county council on 14th June, when he intimated that, as it was unreasonable for the council to be asked to approve, as local planning authority, proposals by the Development Corporation with which they were not in sympathy, an Order would be made under Section 3 (2) of the New Towns Act, 1946.
So, because it was clear that Dunbarton County Council was not prepared to approve certain schemes, the authority it had has been taken away from it.
I agree with the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns that if one wants unity one can get it by having a

dictatorship. This is what is happening, when Dunbarton County Council has its powers taken away. It is evident from all the correspondence I have had and from my inquiries that there is a clear difference of view between the county council and the corporation. Therefore, it would seem right and proper for the Secretary of State for Scotland to use the machinery under the 1947 Act, to allow both sides to put their case and for the commissioner to listen and to give an unbiased view to the Secretary of State. This opportunity ought to have been taken in the first instance, despite the difficulties and problems. I agree with the hon. Member that this could have been done. Then the Secretary of State could have had advice in that way.
We should bear in mind that it is the general practice of all authorities in Scotland—Dunbarton County Council is no exception—that, if planning application is turned down and the matter goes to the Secretary of State on appeal, and he accepts the case and allows the appeal, that is taken as a precedent. They do not go on turning down applications of this kind. There is no reason why that practice should not have been followed in this case.
Did the Secretary of State believe that this would involve delay? It has been said that a great deal of delay was created by what happened. Let us look at that situation. Take the case of the first scheme which was started. At that time the houses were urgently required. It had been agreed that Messrs. Burroughs were to build a factory and that houses were urgently required for their workpeople. The county council assisted the corporation, and the county council officers selected this site and got on with the job. The site was at Kildrum Farm and was to provide 355 houses.
By 3rd June, 1957, planning permission had more or less been agreed to, but what is the situation today? Only half those houses are occupied, a quarter are under construction and detailed plans have not yet been submitted for the other quarter. The Burroughs factory has been built and workers are in it. The firm had to go to other places to get workers for the factory before the houses were built. Those workers are still having to travel to work. I think that they will find it difficult to get houses in the new


town, because they are being provided for the overspill population of Glasgow. I do not blame the corporation because many of the delays associated with this scheme were caused by difficulties with the contractors. There is no doubt about that.
Further schemes for planning were put forward. Could the Minister tell us if in any of those schemes planning permission was not given within two months? The main difficulty was pressure. The corporation is under pressure from the Government to build houses. The corporation members are under pressure from their planning officers and I do not believe they have enough time to consider plans sufficiently. The town and country planning committee is under pressure in looking at the plans, because it does not want to hold up building of houses. These plans were accepted and none was under consideration for more than two months.
Although the plans were agreed to, informal discussions took place. Private conversations were held because the members of the committee were not happy about the plans. The planning officer was having informal talks with the corporation and indicating to it the faults which the committee felt were in the plans. Lack of space, lack of amenity and lack of privacy—these were some of the main features to which they objected. Despite those informal talks and private conversations, the corporation continued to send forward schemes with exactly the same faults which the committee saw.
Latterly a different situation has arisen, because the lay members of the committee were able to see some of the schemes for which they had agreed to give planning permission and, having seen the houses, they began to have doubts. Whether I or anyone in this House agrees with the committee, this is the unanimous view of the committee. The committee said to the corporation, "We have had enough. We have advised you, we have pleaded with you, we have not held up these schemes because we know you are anxious to build the houses, but the time has come, now that we can see for ourselves what is happening, for us to say, 'No, you have to do something else about it'."
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) speaks for me in this matter as well as for other members of the planning committee. They do not wish to make a wholesale condemnation of the corporation in the task that it is performing. Some would pay tribute to the new ideas which are being brought to some of the problems it has to face. I hope that other hon. Members will take the opportunity to see this new town, because it is on a completely different basis from any other I have seen. It is not built on the neighbourhood theory but will have one centre where, in theory, everyone can walk without crossing public roads.
What is the basic fault in this conflict? I think that when the new town was planned it was planned for a population of 50,000, and on that basis with the land which had been acquired there would have been a higher density than existed in East Kilbride or Glenrothes. It was only marginal, and I would not lay any great stress on that point, but that was the position.
After the Development Corporation started, it advised the Secretary of State for Scotland that the population could be 70,000. The Secretary of State accepted that on the same land as had been planned for 50,000 there could be a population of 70,000. There is no doubt that the higher density has been accepted.
This brought great problems to the Dunbarton County Council, because immediately it had to replan its services, its schools and all the requirements for a town of 70,000 in the same area as had originally been allotted to 50,000. The county council did not object; it accepted it. What it has objected to is the method by which it is being carried out. When the county council was told that it was likely that an Order of this kind would be made, it immediately asked for a meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland. This was agreed, and a deputation met the Secretary of State in July of this year.
The members of the deputation were very happy with that meeting. They found the Secretary of State very attentive, and they felt that he had listened with care to what they said and had been impressed by their case. They left the meeting confident that the Secretary of


State had listened to their case and would give it further consideration, but they had hardly reached home in Dunbarton—it was only two days later—when they received a letter saying that the Order had been made.
At the meeting with the Secretary of State the county engineer and planning officer brought forward alternative Plans to handle this problem of density. Let us all agree that in this new town of Cumbernauld there is to be a higher density of population than any of us wants. There is no doubt about that. It provides problems. But it does not necessarily follow that the plans put forward by the corporation are correct. The county council understood that the Secretary of State for Scotland agreed with this view when he looked at the plans put forward by the county engineer and planning officer for Dunbarton County Council, who had gone to all this trouble of showing alternatives. He himself did not say that he had necessarily the correct answer. His view was that this is a great problem, that no one had any experience of it previously and that it ought to be given careful consideration.
Despite that, the Order was laid. Despite the fact that the Order says that consultations will take place, this letter from him shows that the Secretary of State for Scotland has approved the schemes to which the Dunbarton County Council refused to give permission. In this letter, which the Secretary of State sent to the county council, he thanks the members very kindly, in most pleasing words, for their advice, but he goes on to reject it. It follows that even the words in the Order indicating that the county council will be consulted mean nothing.
This is not a problem met by new towns in England or in East Kilbride or Glenrothes. This is an entirely new and difficult problem, and I do not think that it will be solved by making this Order tonight. Clearly there is conflict, and in my view it requires further investigation. I believe that this conflict is bedevilled by the pressure of Lord Craigton, who has brought as much pressure as possible on the corporation and its members to build houses as rapidly as possible because he wants to see the overspill problem in Glasgow solved.

But I have grave fears that even the officers of the Cumbernauld Development Corporation will have their hearts broken in this matter, because I cannot see the Government providing the financial assistance necessary to ensure that the new town has the amenities and facilities which even the Corporation desires.
I am sure that this Order in itself will solve nothing, and I hope and trust that the Minister will withdraw it and allow the county council, the corporation and his own officers to get together to find some other method of solving the problem.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: As the Secretary of State referred to who started this business in Scotland, I would point out that the problem of difficult relations between a county council and a new town is not novel. I tried to solve it at that time by having cross-directorships, as it were—having enough members of the county council on the directorship of the new town to ensure an exchange of ideas and some chance of reaching agreement.
Where we have a new town, a great imaginative conception, it is sometimes difficult to blend it with the rather fixed ideas which have existed for many years in the county council. When we have this conflict of the arty-crafty people, so to speak, who come in to design a new town, with the more established views of the people who have been working on certain principles for a number of years, it is difficult even for a Secretary of State to reconcile these two points of view. If they exist, as they have existed, there is a continual argument between these two points of view. It goes on all the time. As a former Prime Minister said, it is "Jaw-jaw", and work is held up. Therefore, I can understand it in certain circumstances. It is the Secretary of State's duty to cut the cackle and get on with the job.
My hon. Friends the Members for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) and Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) have obviously studied the details. They have good reason for asking that the Secretary of State should justify the new step. It is not the case that other new towns have always flown free. In Lanarkshire there was very little difficulty, because there were reasonable people on the county


council and on the development boards. But the late county clerk in Fife, who was put on the development board there, was not exactly as co-operative with Mr. Hector McNeil as one would have liked. There was a tendency to push the interests of the county council against the interests of the new town. In that case, the Secretary of the State had a duty to ensure that there was not any frustration of the development of the ideals inherent in the conception of a new town. These things were overcome by conciliation, and Glenrothes and East Kilbride have gone ahead fairly successfully.
I understand that there is a conflict of view between Dunbartonshire and the new town. It is a conflict of conception about the purpose of the new town. Perhaps they are both right in their way, but they cannot both have their plans carried out. Eventually there will come the question of which plan is to be carried out. If there is a pattern in the scheme for a new town, it makes it difficult, once the pattern is approved, if someone else comes along, takes a little away from the pattern and leaves it more higgledy-piggledy. The whole conception of town planning is that there should be a pattern so that everything fits into everything else in a preconceived way. I agree entirely that the pattern may be wrong.

Mr. Steele: There is no dispute about the pattern of the town. That has been accepted. The details of the pattern are now the subject of conflict.

Mr. Woodburn: As for the details, if the management of a new town is appointed, it is very difficult if someone forty or fifty miles away starts interfering with or objecting to details. Someone has to make the decision.

Mr. Steele: My right hon. Friend should not confuse the issue. I was thinking in terms of the wide conception of the plan. In speaking of details, I did not mean where the sewers have to be. I was thinking of much more important details.

Mr. Woodburn: There are two conceptions. Obviously the Secretary of State then becomes a judge and has to decide between the two conceptions.
At the moment, the new town is presumably developing its plans, which it

submits to the county council. If the county council objects, all the plans have to go into the melting pot again. What I gather is now being suggested is that the new town will make its plans and that the local authority will be able to make its suggestions and appeal, if necessary, to the Secretary of State for his decision.
These are matters which we cannot tell until the Secretary of State gives an explanation. I am very much against preventing the new town developing in the best possible way. There are occasions when it is a personal matter. One person on the county council or one person on the local authority can upset the whole apple cart. If he has preconceived ideas about what should be done, the whole thing is held up and there is continual argument.
When that situation arises, someone has to cut the cackle. It is desirable that, as far as possible, there should be complete co-operation between the local authority and the new town. It would be a waste of public money to have two sets of engineers and two sets of architects in the same county, if the county authorities were able to take on the job. That is the best way to secure co-operation.
We persuaded the Midlothian County Council to consent, without building a new town or making a New Town Order, to take on the responsibility of building houses which were equivalent in number to a new town. It was, therefore, done by the local authority much more economically than it would have been if we had established a new town corporation. Even in Fifeshire and the other new towns, we in Scotland manage this much more economically by securing very close co-operation between new towns and county councils. I take it that for some reason or other, about which we shall probably hear, this close co-operation has broken down in Dunbartonshire. It would be quite improper for me to pass judgment as to who is responsible, but, clearly, if an impasse has been reached the Secretary of State must break it and get on with the job.
Perhaps when we have the reply to this debate the Secretary of State will be able to justify or otherwise the step he has taken in introducing the Order. I


agree with my hon. Friend that it implies that something has gone wrong in Dunbartonshire which has not gone wrong either in Lanarkshire or Fifeshire. We had difficulties in Fifeshire for the reason I have mentioned. We did not have to take these powers. It will be interesting to have the Secretary of State's explanation of why, in this case, he has taken them.

8.35 p.m.

Sir Myer Galpern: I am impelled to enter this debate partly because of the somewhat sad and depressed demeanour of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley). To find such a mild hon. Member of this House so consumed with righteous indignation that he is prepared to face the cohorts of the Tory Party majority and rise in his place and oppose them, shows how righteous his case must be. Apart from that, as a former member of the Glasgow Corporation, I recall that the corporation, for which the new town of Cumbernauld has largely been built and which will be the exporting authority, instructed its representative at one stage to oppose certain recommendations in the development of this new town.
We in Glasgow also have experts. It is most unfortunate that the medical officer of health of the City of Glasgow has within the last few days seen fit to protest that the views which he has expressed have been shelved and ignored in preference to those of so-called experts. Who are the experts? As medical officer of health of the second largest city in Britain—I hope that nobody from Birmingham is present—we have a most capable man of integrity, conscientiousness, knowledge and experience. He is supported by the Dunbarton medical officer of health. Experts seem to be all too ready nowadays to change their views and opinions according to the exigencies of a situation and according to the demands made upon them by people who may be their controllers or employers. It is unfortunate that our own medical officer of health in Glasgow, who has some excellent ideas about town development, has had to realise that all his knowledge and experience are regarded as being absolutely valueless.
Why has the dispute arisen? When we get a body of men and women who compose the Dunbarton County Council expressing opposition to a certain viewpoint, it is because they feel that, if they were called upon to live in certain conditions, they would not accept. One of the great tragedies is that the great and desperate need for new houses—which, evidently, according to his speech in the House the other day, the Prime Minister does not seem to recognise—leads to the fact that local authorities are dragooned into accepting anything that may provide at least a temporary shelter for people who practically have no place in which to live.
We shall pay the penalty for that within a very few years because, I regret to say, we have seen growing up in Glasgow, as a result of this constant reduction of our standards of decency and public health in the interest of meeting the urgency of the situation, which we should deal with in an entirely different fashion, the very nuclei of slums and difficulties by way of delinquency, and so on, because the amenities are not provided. In the years to come, this will lead the people to condemn, and rightly so, those who are responsible for these schemes. Unhappily I believe that it is possible that we shall still get something of the same nature.
When we find members of a county council in rebellion and offering their viewpoints as ones in which they firmly believe and are conscientiously prepared to prosecute, then, if we allow the Secretary of State to step in and to sidestep them, and to a certain degree remove from them responsibilities which rightly belong to them, we are doing something in addition—removing the whole value and purpose of local representation. We already have enough difficulty in attracting men and women of the right type to come into public service. The more we keep denuding local authorities of powers which have been vested in them, then the greater will be that difficulty and the more acute will be the shortage in that sphere of public service.
I am with the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns. I think that we may have in him a better ally probably than my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), in that probably the view of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns will weigh


more with the Government, with the result that we may anticipate the withdrawal of the Order. That may be largely due to the intervention of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns. Therefore, I am glad that he had the courage to intervene tonight.
In concluding, I should like to express the view that there is a very definite need for the retention of the powers of the local authorities, and that they should be removed or reduced only in very exceptional circumstances. I believe that in this case these exceptional circumstances do not arise. I would ask the Under-Secretary of State for an assurance that under the Section which we are discussing—Section 3—not only has the Secretary of State a duty to consult the local planning authority within whose district the land is situated but he has also the duty to consult any local authority which appears to him to be concerned.
It is from that angle that I especially wish an assurance that Glasgow Corporation, which is vitally, fundamentally and deeply interested in this problem, will receive—if the hon. Gentleman is not going to listen to the plea of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns and withdraw the Order—a guarantee that it and the medical officer will be consulted at every stage to ensure that the best possible type of housing will be provided and that the people will not be condemned to live in something which, in my opinion, will become slums at too early an age in the near future.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I am very disappointed that the Joint Under-Secretary of State has not risen before this to say a word or two in justification of the Order. When my hon. Friends the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) and the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) were speaking, I recollected that they took the view that at this stage it did not lie with those who were criticising the Order to make a case against it, but that, since it was something quite new in Scotland, and since it applies in particular to only one of our three new towns, it was the responsibility of the Secretary of State to justify making the Order.
I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State has waited so long, because if he waits till all hon. Members who wish to speak have spoken, they will then have exhausted their right to make further contributions and, as a result, the Under-Secretary of State's case will go uncriticised further in the House tonight. From that point of view, as I think he will himself recognise, there was much to be said for his getting up as soon as possible after the Prayer was moved.
I have sought to inform myself about this matter by consulting some of the local authorities. I have read the material sent out not only by Dumbarton County Council but by other county councils and, in particular, by the county council of Lanark in whose area the new town of East Kilbride is situated. I have found it extremely difficult to discover any justification for the making of the Order at all. I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) about the dual capacity of the Secretary of State in these matters. I recall also that towards the end of his remarks the hon. Member said that in the circumstances he, too, wondered why the Order should be confined to one new town and should not apply to them all.
It is a great pity that the Order has been brought forward. If the Government's defence is the one that was offered by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns the Order ought to have applied to all three towns. Since it does not apply to all three, one must imagine that there is some other defence for the Order than the one offered by the hon. Member—which is the only one that I could imagine—unless, of course, it could be said that the planning committee of Dumbarton County Council had behaved so badly over a period that it would be unthinkable to continue to develop this new town against the impediments put in the way of that development by the planning committee. But I understand that there is no possibility of the Joint Under-Secretary of State offering that as a reason for bringing forward the Order.
I understand that the planning committee of Dumbarton County Council has been extremely helpful ever since the


inception of the new town, and that its opposition, its criticism and its reluctance to agree with recent proposals are based solely on the grounds that standards are being very considerably lowered. The planning committee is supported in this objection to recent proposals by Glasgow Corporation and by the medical officer of health for Glasgow who has the responsibility for re-housing more people than any other medical officer in Scotland. It is his people who will largely occupy the new houses in the new town of Cumbernauld and who will make a substantial contribution towards the cost of those houses of £14 per house for ten years.
We have, therefore, the local authority in whose area the houses are being built offering objections to what it regards as a quite disgraceful lowering of standards, and we have the objection of the authority from which the new population of Cumbernauld is being very largely drawn. It would appear also that the Secretary of State, having decided that this new town will accommodate ultimately 70,000 and not 50,000, will undertake the job of putting a quart into a pint pot. He cannot trust the local authority to handle plans that will enable him to put 70,000 people in where 50,000 were originally going—and even with 50,000 this was going to be a high-density town.
I perfectly well understand that the Secretary of State will have to have regard to many considerations. He is to have regard to the cost of the new town and to the cost to the taxpayer over a period of years. I can well understand that he will be reluctant to seek another Order to increase the designated area. I appreciate also that he has endeavoured with differing degrees of success to induce the local housing authorities, let alone the planning authorities, to reduce the standard of houses that they would build. I realise also that he will be most anxious to get these houses of lower standard, with their congestion and the lack of privacy mentioned by my hon. Friends. Some of the houses are virtually of the old back-to-back type condemned thirty years ago.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith) indicated dissent.

Mr. Fraser: The Joint Under-Secretary of State shakes his head, but these houses have been so described because they are inferior houses. I understand that the Secretary of State will want all these things to go through with the least possible objection to them, and as the new town corporation consists of persons appointed by the Secretary of State its officials are really his servants one step removed.
Inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman wants certain proposals to be given effect to, it would be very much easier if his plans went first to the new town corporation and then came back to him, when he would consult Dunbartonshire County Council and Glasgow Corporation. He is only obliged, under Section 3 of the New Towns Act, 1946, to consult them. Inasmuch as these would be his proposals in the first place, they would very likely be put into effect with only the minimum of modification after he had had these consultations.
In building a new town in Scotland or anywhere else it is desirable to move forward with the maximum possible agreement. So far there has been very considerable agreement in building the new town of Cumbernauld. If the Secretary of State and the Development Corporation have proposals which are objected to at first by the planning committee, and the corporation therefore appeals to the Secretary of State, I have no doubt that he would inquire into these proposals—perhaps appointing a commissioner and having a report made on them—and that when similar proposals were put forward in the future the planning committee would have regard to what the commissioner had said on the last occasion.
The difficulties that lay in front of the Development Corporation and the Secretary of State in the development of this new town under the pre-existing arrangements did not seem to be great, but under this Order the Secretary of State has taken all these powers to himself, and it will be exceedingly difficult to get the Dunbartonshire County Council or the Glasgow Corporation, which have been advised by their experts that standards are being lowered, ever to agree to his proposals. He will have a running sore in the continual objections to the


building of what might become known as an inferior type of town.
That would be a bad thing. There may be an absence of truth in the assertion that it is an inferior type of town, but if one has authorities like the Dunbartonshire County Council and the Glasgow Corporation taking this view, then it is bound to gain currency. From that point of view it would have been better to have left things as they were and not to have this Order.
In these circumstances, I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will feel that he is empowered to withdraw the Order tonight. I realise that Under-Secretaries are very often given instructions, and that perhaps the Secretary of State has told him that he must get the Order through and that he feels that he cannot therefore withdraw it. I hope, however, that he feels able to listen to what is being said in this debate, and if he feels that the weight of opinion in the House, as expressed by Members who are very anxious that this new town should be a success, is in favour of withdrawing the Order and returning to the pre-existing position in the summer of this year and earlier, then I hope that he will withdraw it.
I want this town to be a success. I am not thirled to any particular population density. I appreciate that we have to vary the densities here and there. I see some very good town development in London to a very much higher density than one sees in most parts of Scotland and which would be quite intolerable in my constituency. I am prepared to see a higher density for Cumbernauld than for East Kilbride. I sometimes think that East Kilbride is a little too spread out. It would not be a bad thing if we had the low density development in East Kilbride and not so very far away, on the other side of Glasgow, the new town of Cumbernauld with a higher density development.
The Dunbartonshire County Council has agreed to a higher density development. Let us have it, but with a type of dwelling and a layout of streets, including widths of road and paths, which are seen by all our planning authorities in Scotland, except apparently by the Secretary of State, as being reasonable and in accord with modern

thinking. I am sure that we can have it if the Joint Under-Secretary will withdraw the Order and let the new town of Cumbernauld grow up as the other new towns in Scotland will.
In conclusion, the other authorities concerned—Fife, on the one hand, and Lanarkshire County Council, on the other—are scared at the moment. They have had the best possible relations with the new town corporations within their own areas, but they feel that if a case is made out for the Order there is no reason why the Secretary of State should not come along at a very early date and say that what is good enough for Cumbernauld is good enough for Glenrothes and East Kilbride.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I think that it will be agreed that it is very difficult for me, as one of the Glasgow Members of Parliament, or any other Glasgow Member of Parliament, to remain unconcerned during this debate. Behind the Order and all that has been said tonight, there are 300,000 people looking for new homes. To me, that is of paramount importance.
I recognise that there are other aspects. I do not want to see undue interference with the powers of local authorities, but if it should happen that the powers of local authorities interfered in any way with the proper rehousing of the people of Glasgow, then I should not be on the side of the local authorities, and I want to make that quite clear.
I agreed completely with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) when he said that it must be part of our business to ensure that in Cumbernauld we do not have what may become an inferior new housing development. However, there is one factor which puzzles me. Not many weeks ago a group of Members of Parliament visited Cumbernauld. I suppose that I saw as many houses as I could during the visit, and I confess that I had no complaints from any tenant to whom I spoke.
I met many people, some of whom had come from Glasgow, who were very glad indeed to be in Cumbernauld, and who found it a welcome change. I do not profess to be an expert on houses


I may have my own ideas about design and planning and all that sort of thing, but I cannot walk into a house and point out all the faults that may be in it. Nor can the experts, as I have discovered in one case to my own cost.
The houses appear to be good houses, and the people in them to whom I spoke were satisfied with their housing situation. I agree again with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton that I should have liked perhaps to see Cumbernauld a little nearer East Kilbride, but I think that he will agree with me that it is probably true that Scotland will never be able to afford another East Kilbride. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] All right, as a result of our visit there, when my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton considers the extent to which East Kilbride is subsidised, he will realise that the cost of that subsidy is a problem that will face any Government, whatever its complexion, if they choose to go ahead again with that type of scheme.
Not that I personally am opposed to it. I am quite prepared to spend money, particularly other people's money, and I would like to see more East Kilbrides. Perhaps Cumbernauld is the answer to East Kilbride if what has been said tonight approximates to the possibilities of Cumbernauld's ultimate deterioration, which did not appear to any of those to whom I spoke when visiting the scheme.
Not only did we see particular types of houses, but saw the layout of the Whole concept, and there did not seem to be any expressed objection to it, at least so far as it was made in my presence. What I did discover was that there was trouble between the Development Corporation and the local authority. It happened that I had the company of the Chairman of the Corporation all the way from Glasgow to Cumbernauld, and, therefore, had the chance of a longer conversation than perhaps normally would have been possible. It was on that journey that I discovered that the scheme was in some difficulty.
The rights and wrongs of that I never sought to weigh, because I did not hear the other side. I heard the Chairman's side, but if there was any truth in one of the things that I was told it seemed to me that, on the face of it and as I heard

it, there was a somewhat undue delay in the progress of the scheme, because of the attitude of the local authority.

Mr. T. Fraser: But did not my hon. Friend travel back from Cumbernauld to Glasgow in a car which he shared with the convenor of the Dunbartonshire County Council and the chairman of the planning committee? Did he not establish the other side of the picture?

Mr. Rankin: Unfortunately, it was one of my disadvantages that, as the guest of the Corporation, I knew only those to whom I was introduced, and it was only when the gentleman to whom my hon. Friend refers left the car at a point which my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) can substantiate, that I made a casual inquiry. I was then told who he was. I had not known him before and I could not ask a question of persons with whose local status I was unfamiliar.
If it is untrue, it will no doubt be denied later, but I was told that the corporation had been hindered because a sub-committee of the county council found it necessary to interfere in the matter of the colour of the paint to be used on the lamp-posts in Cumbernauld. I heard that that argument went on for a long time before it was finally decided that the lamp-posts should be painted white. That may have been an important matter, because one wants to be sure that the colour of lamp-posts will fit into the general design. The rights and wrongs may have been exaggerated, but it still seems unfortunate.

Mr. Steele: I am interested in this story of the painting of the lampposts. The important thing was that the lampposts should have been put up to give the people light. Surely the question of erecting them did not have to wait for a decision about colour.

Mr. Rankin: There are many matters to be considered. I do not know whether dogs have a particular partiality for a certain type of paint, or whether that was considered by the sub-committee, but one has to look at these things in their widest aspect. It may have been that all aspects were considered, but it is evident that these things have boiled up until those who are charged with building the new town have found their work slowed down.
Before the Recess, I put down a Question about the apparent slowness with which houses were being built in Cumbernauld. That Question was mentioned on our visit and it was pointed out that the corporation felt itself somewhat circumscribed by what it considered to be the attitude of the local authority. Those are the things which we cannot afford to to ignore and it appears that the Order is the result of the bickering between the local authority and the corporation on certain aspects of the development of Cumbernauld which have led to a slowing down of the building of houses beyond what the City of Glasgow, with its housing problem, is entitled to expect. I hope that if the Order is accepted, after the Secretary of State has justified it, we shall see a speeding up of the building of houses in Cumbernauld.

9.10 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) on the very moderate and persuasive manner in which he moved the Motion. I am sorry if I offended the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr T. Fraser) in not getting up immediately after that to put the Government's case. It seems that Ministers can never do the right thing. Either they get up too soon, or they get up too late. All I can say is that I did not intend any disrespect to the House.
I should like to begin by stressing some of the general considerations, which I hope will put into proper perspective the circumstances which led to the making of this Order, and that is what the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele), in seconding the Motion, asked me to do.
Some of the speeches seemed to imply that the making of this Order was a reflection on the capabilities of the Dunbarton County Council. The hon. Gentleman used the phrase, "a blow at the local authority". He indicated that he thought that this local authority had been treated rather roughly. My hon Friend made the same point.
I assure the House that an intention to treat the local authority roughly has never been in the mind of my right hon.

Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Both he and my noble Friend the Minister of State have had meetings with the county council, some of which have been referred to this evening, and they have both been at pains to emphasise that they recognise that the council was fully within its rights in refusing planning permission for the particular development which was the immediate occasion of the present difficulties. Indeed, one might go so far as to say that, holding the views which the local authority held in the light of the advice which it received from its officers, no other course was really open to the county council.
I should like to emphasise and reaffirm quite clearly that we recognise that the county council was right to do what it believed to be right, and I should like to take the opportunity of saying how much we appreciate the help and the co-operation which the Dunbarton County Council has shown on so many aspects of the Cumbernauld project since it was initiated five years ago. I hope that that will go some way towards setting at rest some of the doubts which were expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin).
Indeed, my right hon. Friend hopes that this spirit of co-operation will be maintained in the new situation. Certainly he intends in the very fullest sense to consult the county council on all development proposals put forward by the new town corporation. I hope that that will satisfy the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East who had some doubts—or seemed to think that there would be no consultation in the future. There will be consultation.

Mr. Bence: I have no doubt that there will be consultation. What I doubt is the fruitfulness of the consultation.

Mr. Galbraith: I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is my right hon. Friend's intention that the consultation will be valuable, and what goes for my right hon. Friend also goes for my noble Friend.
Having stressed these considerations, I should like to come to the root of the matter, which was referred to very persuasively by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley), which is the simple question of where the responsibility for


the planning of this new town really lies. Basically, the situation which existed until the Order was made was not logical, and might indeed have been expected to produce the practical difficulties which have now arisen at Cumbernauld and to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
As the House knows, the Cumbernauld Development Corporation was appointed by the Secretary of State under the New Towns Act to plan and develop the new town. All its development proposals have to be approved by my right hon. Friend, and the planning of the new towns, both generally and in detail, is subject to his direction. There is thus constant discussion at all stages between my right hon. Friend's Department and the corporation on the design, lay-out and general appearance of the town.
In the situation which obtained prior to the making of the Order, the corporation's proposals also had to be submitted to the local planning authority, and if the proposals were disapproved by the local planning authority they were liable to be the subject of appeal to the Secretary of State. In these circumstances, my right hon. Friend would clearly have been in a very difficult position, in so far as he would be asked to adjudicate between the views of the county council and the proposals of the Development Corporation with which he had already been directly concerned.
Furthermore, the Dunbarton County Council was faced with the dilemma of either giving planning permission automatically to the corporation and, in effect, being a kind of rubber stamp for proposals with which it did not agree, or, alternatively, of incurring the blame for holding up development that was urgently needed to meet the grave housing problems of Glasgow——

Mr. Woodburn: It seems that the hon. Gentleman has posed a dilemma that does not really exist. For instance, the Secretary of State will still have to judge on representations from the county council concerning any proposal made even by the corporation for his Department's consent, in the same way as he would have had to do in the circumstances of an appeal against any decision of the planning committee.
A Secretary of State does not himself make these plans. He has continually to judge in his own Department between,

say, agriculture and forestry. An appeal comes to him, and he has to sit as a judge, because the local authority is also, in a way, an agency of the public. He has to take all these people's views into consideration and make a judgment upon them, and I am quite sure that he would always judge fairly once something was brought to his notice.

Mr. Galbraith: It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that—he has been a Secretary of State, and knows the difficulties—but this seems to me to be rather different. The Secretary of State and his officials have been in the thing from the beginning, and then they are suddenly asked not to consider the views of the local authorities but to act in a quasi-judicial capacity. I think that that is a very difficult thing to do.
However, when the right hon. Gentleman interrupted, I was not talking about the Secretary of State's difficulties but of those of the county council, which either had to give planning permission for something with which it did not agree—rather like a rubber stamp—or, alternatively, to incur the blame for holding up development that was urgently needed to meet the grave housing problems of Glasgow. In fact, what it comes to is that the ordinary system of local planning control was not designed to deal with the situation that inevitably arises in the planning and development of a new town.
The planning of a new town is, perhaps, more akin to those major projects in which the Secretary of State, as planning Minister, requires applications for planning permission to be referred directly to him; as happens, for example, with the development of trunk roads or in the provisional National Park areas. Indeed, it was for this very reason that Parliament enacted the special provisions in Section 3 (2) of the New Towns Act empowering the Secretary of State, by Order, to exempt new town development corporations from the need to obtain planning permission from the local authority.
It would certainly be my right hon. Friend's intention to make a similar order, right at the outset, for any further new town that may be built in the future, as has already been done for all new towns in England and Wales—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North


Angus and Mearns pointed out, these arrangements in England and Wales have worked very well.
The hon. Gentleman asked why it should be only Cumbernauld that was picked out. I think that I should tell the House that my right hon. Friend also intends to review the situation with regard to East Kilbride and Glenrothes—in consultation, of course, with the Development Corporations of those towns and the local authorities concerned. In brief, therefore, by this Order we are simply placing the planning responsibility directly where it really belongs. After all, all these new town projects are really the job of a specialised agency—the new town corporation—working with the approval, and subject to the direction, of the Secretary of State.
Indeed, the proper rôle to be played by the local authority is that provided in the New Town Act itself, that it has to be fully consulted at various stages of the new town development. For the reasons I have already given, my right hon. Friend is convinced that it would be wrong to keep the local authority in the false position that prevailed before the Order was made of holding, as planning authority, a direct responsibility which is not really theirs in fact.

Mr. Steele: The hon. Gentleman made a statement which inferred that the local authorities should be consulted at each stage of the new town development. I am anxious to know what that stage is, because the difficulty of the Dunbarton County Council has been that it has asked the corporation that it should be brought in consultation when the plans are being prepared and considered, and the corporation officials have said that it is impossible to do this. They cannot possibly consult the local authority until they have approval for all their plans from the corporation members. I would have thought that at that stage consultation is unlikely to be fruitful. If consultation is to take place it is at the formative stage of the plans.

Mr. Galbraith: The consultation to which I have been referring has, of course, been a consultation by the Secretary of State after he has seen what the Development Corporation intends to

build. That is where the consultation is to take place.
I do not think this is the place to go into details on the merits of the particular scheme of 282 houses which presented the immediate difficulties leading to the making of this Order. I ought, perhaps, to tell the House that these particular proposals were essentially similar to other housing projects of the Development Corporation which the county council had previously approved.

Mr. Steele: That is exactly the point. The hon. Member is now claiming a right on behalf of the corporation and the Secretary of State for Scotland that, because the Dunbarton county planning authority agreed to something being done previously, this was justification for it being done now. Surely the hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I had to say. In fact, I pointed out in my speech that, during the time when these plans were being agreed to, there were informal, private conversations taking place pointing out this very thing, and it was only at the end of the day when no notice was being taken of this that the Dunbarton county council took this view.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman has interrupted me several times. I hope he will allow me to develop my argument, because it is difficult to do so when he frequently interrupts, though I recognise that he has a perfect right to do so.
I was saying that although the county council was perfectly entitled, on reflection, to reach the conclusion it did and not to grant permission, its decision to do so in May of this year was certainly not expected by the Development Corporation and that created a serious difficulty for the corporation. So the corporation could complain in exactly the same way as the local authority, through the hon. Gentleman, has been complaining this evening.
In fact, without the Order, the corporation's building programme would have been retarded by at least six months. At this stage of the development of the town, when industry is expanding and the demand for homes for Glasgow families is becoming increasingly urgent, that was a very important consideration which could not be ignored by my right hon. Friend. I am glad that


the hon. Member for Govan realises the practical importance of this point.
I wish to turn to one or two detailed points raised during the debate. I am glad that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East found, as the Member for the constituency—perhaps the hon. Member would listen to what I am saying because it was an important point he made—that all the occupants were very satisfied with the houses in which they were living. The hon. Gentleman did, however, refer to privacy and the fact that the proposed development in Cumbernauld is less than that allowed under the model building byelaws which prescribe at least 60 ft. between houses on either side of the road. This point is important and may have led to some misunderstanding. The byelaws provide for a lesser distance to be approved where appropriate, and my right hon. Friend considers that in the circumstances of Cumbernauld—in particular, the special design of the houses and the hilly nature of the site—there is no need to insist upon uniform minimum distances. Where one row of houses, for example, is at a different level from another, quite different considerations apply from those which apply when all the houses are on the same level. Moreover, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that in the project which he approved the standards of daylight, sunlight and privacy are fully adequate. The individual houses and lay-out have been designed specifically to meet these requirements in relation to the particular site.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West referred to an alternative plan. I have had an opportunity to look at it, and it seems to me that it suffers from one great drawback. It is that a certain number of houses face northwards and do not take advantage of the sun. I think it important that in Scotland one should try to get houses facing towards the south-west, and the alternative plan fails to do that.

Mr. Steele: The plan was not put forward as a complete alternative. It was put forward as one plan and not necessarily as an alternative.

Mr. Galbraith: Yes, but I wanted the hon. Gentleman to realise that the plan had been looked at very carefully. He gave the impression that we had taken

the plan and cast it on one side without considering it. I should like the hon. Gentleman to realise that that is not so.
Both the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East referred to the town centre and wondered what was its future.

Mr. T. Fraser: If the hon. Member insists on all the houses looking southwest, what happens to houses on the other side of the street? Do not they look north-east?

Mr. Galbraith: I do not wish to try to appear clever, but if the hon. Gentleman were to go to Cumbernauld——

Mr. Fraser: I have been there.

Mr. Gailbraith: —he would find that in some of the development the houses look over the tops of the other houses, so that in fact——

Mr. Fraser: They look in the back doors of the other houses.

Mr. Galbraith: No, in the front doors. It is very confusing, I know.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East spoilt his case when arguing about the town centre. He intimated—and here he became rather party political—that he thought there was no chance of anything happening while this Government were in power. He seems to have forgotten all about the development at Ravenscraig, the B.M.C., and at Linwood. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend that the Corporation should proceed with the town centre at a stage much earlier than normally is possible. The Corporation, I am glad to say, is considering plans for the town centre even now and is building a group of shops which, eventually, will form part of the centre.
In conclusion, I wish to emphasise that the Cumbernauld Development Corporation is well fitted for its task and has a vital and essential job to do. Its plan is bold and in many respects it presents novel features. It would not be appropriate for me to go into them in greater detail this evening, although I have referred to them already in reply to the hon. Member for Hamilton. I agree that some people may not like them, but, if we are building a new town, I think we


ought to see that it really is a new town, of the 1960 version, not the 1948 version. Certainly the new town of Cumbernauld has excited great interest, and indeed admiration, in many quarters both here and abroad, as well as the criticism we have heard tonight.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), I thought, suggested, although I may be doing him an injustice here, that this town was a kind of planners' dream and that the planners would not like to live in the houses that were being built there. All I can say is that if I had to choose between living in the houses which have been built in the outskirts of my City of Glasgow and in those in Cumbernauld, I have no doubt that I would choose those in Cumbernauld.
My right hon. Friend is convinced that the corporation must be given a full opportunity of showing what it can do. I hope that in view of what I have said tonight, and particularly the fact that there will be the fullest possible consultation with local authorities, the hon. Member who moved this Motion will feel disposed to withdraw it.

Mr. T. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman said that if the Order had not been made the building of 282 houses would have been delayed by six months. It is now four months since this Order was made. Has a start been made on the building of these houses?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member is pretending to be more simple than he

really is. He knows that houses cannot be built until they have been planned and the site laid out and that it would not be possible to go ahead with that work if it were thought that there was a chance that eventually permission might not be obtained.

Mr. Fraser: Could the hon. Gentleman answer the question?

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: I warn the Joint Under-Secretary, in view of what he said about extending the provisions of this Order to Glenrothes, that the battle will have much more cannon when he deals with Glenrothes. In the number of years in which Glenrothes have been developing there has been very little difference existing between the county planning authorities and the Development Corporation. I should like to know, therefore, why the Secretary of State intends to use these provisions in respect of Glenrothes.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Secretary of State would be consulting the Corporation before he did so. I should like an assurance tonight that he will also consult with the county planning authority before making any observations. If not, I can assure him that there will be great difficulties before he gets away with this in Fife.

Mr. Galbraith: It is the intention of my right hon. Friend to consult both the corporation and the local authorities before he does anything.

Question put and negatived.

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND (EDUCATION)

9.35 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Teachers (Training Authorities) (Scotland) (Amendment No. 1) Regulations, 1960 (S.I., 1960, No. 1877), dated 17th October, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.
I wish to raise one or two points in connection with the fourth of these draft Regulations. This Regulation is before the House as a result of what took place in connection with the Moray House Demonstration School. Unfortunately, the present Joint Under-Secretary of State was not in his office at that time and he may, therefore, be treading on rather strange ground. Nevertheless, I hope that he will answer our questions.
At that time, the governors of the school proposed to close the secondary department. There was a widespread protest about this. My hon. Friends raised it with the Secretary of State and, as a result, the Government discovered that the governors had no power to do this. They have evaded the issue which arose at that time by stating that they had no legal powers to close the secondary department of the school and that, therefore, there would be the normal intake of the children to the secondary department for the present session. That has taken place.
But that has not given much satisfaction to us. This Regulation states:
A governing body may make such changes in the organisation of the school as they consider desirable and may close the school. A governing body shall net exercise the power to provide a demonstration school … to provide a new primary or secondary department in a school, to discontinue a primary or secondary department in a school, or to close a school, without the approval of the Secretary of State.
After these Regulations were published I wrote to the Secretary of State sending him an amendment to them which had been suggested by me to the parents of the children at present at the school. The purpose of the amendment was to ensure that before action of this kind was taken there would be consultation with the parents of the children concerned.
In reply, I received a letter from the hon. Member's predecessor, who has since been transferred to the Board of Trade, in which he refused to accept this amendment. He said that he could not see any necessity for it, and continued:
There is no statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to take account of any views expressed by parents and others in relation to the closure of a school or department by an education authority, but in practice this is invariably done. Indeed, it is so obvious"—
those were his words—
that it should be done that we see no need to legislate for it.
When the original proposal was made to close the secondary department of Moray House School nobody was consulted at all; that was one of the causes of complaint at the time. So far from it being so obvious that there was no need to do anything about it, it proved in practice to be completely wrong. No consultations took place and the parents knew nothing about the proposals concerning Moray House School until they received from the governors a communication to the very brief effect that the secondary department was to be closed this summer.
The excuse put forward by the Government for not accepting the amendment I forwarded to them, or something similar, is not a reason, because in practice it did not obtain. Therefore, I do not think that we should accept these Regulations until we receive a better assurance than we have had so far.
The agents representing the parents of the children would still like the amendment accepted or some similar words inserted into the Regulations. I do not know whether that is possible. I should like to think that it is. The agents say:
… my clients would be somewhat reassured if they could take it for granted … that the Secretary of State invariably would seek the views of parents and others and that there would be no need to protect parents and others in this respect in the proposed new Regulations.
Before we part with the Regulations, I hope that we shall have a definite assurance that this is intended. It is important that we should have such an assurance, because when the Regulations are passed the governors of Moray House School will at once consider again the closing of the secondary department. I think that that is the intention of Regulation No. 4, and there can be no


doubt that within a few months the governors will once again consider this. We want an assurance that before they make a decision they will at least consult the parents of the children concerned.
Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the secondary department is likely to be closed? The Government have their own ideas about the school and I do not think that they are in very great uncertainty about what its future will be. However, we should be told this, because it is only fair to the parents and children that they should at least be given as much notice as possible of any changes to be made in the near future.
I do not ask this question simply to use up time. I ask it because it is a matter of great importance to many of my constituents and also many constituents of my hon. Friends representing other Edinburgh seats. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will be able to say something about these matters before we part with the Regulations.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I support the Motion which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). This is an old battle which he and I joined many months ago when the governors proposed to close the secondary department of this school. It brought immediate repercussions in my constituency, because a considerable number of children from Leith are pupils at the school. Obviously, their parents resented what they regarded as the rather high-handed action taken on that occasion in a simple intimation that the school was to be closed and the children would have to find places in some other school in some other part of the town. As a result, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East, we had a meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland to let him know just how keenly the parents felt about this proposal.
It is not our intention tonight to argue the merits of that dispute except to make it clear that when we interviewed the Secretary of State for Scotland, we proved convincingly to him that even if the school were allowed to take over these classrooms, that would in no way provide

a solution to the problem which confronted Moray House School. That was made perfectly clear.
After all the discussion, it was found by the Scottish Office that the governors did not have the power to close the school. When that was found out, the governors then moved more quickly than I have known them to do in anything else which they have been asked to do. Within a week or two, tonight's Regulations were produced so that they could take this power, which provides them with a little bit of retrospective legislation—in fact, to make it possible for them to do what they found it impossible to do when the proposal was first made. I am bound to say to the Joint Under-Secretary that the parents resent this sort of tactic by the Scottish Office. They regard it as a little bit of a slick trick which is being perpetrated by the Department and they want certain assurances.
It is true that when we were written to by the secretary of the parents' association, I was associated in the protest with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and the amendment which he has mentioned was submitted. The secretary of the parents' association said that they would like to take it for granted that the parents would be consulted if any changes had to be made. I, for one, am not prepared to advise them that they should take things for granted.
What we seek tonight is specific assurances that if changes have to be made, the parents will be consulted. I should like to know whether the governors have already intimated to the Scottish Office that they propose to go into this matter once more to take action which they were prevented from doing a month or two ago. That is the feeling which the parents have. If that be the case, the Secretary of State for Scotland cannot get out of it, because it must be done with his approval. Therefore, he would be held responsible to this House. If it is intended to take a step of that kind, he can be assured that he will meet the opposition of those of us who had to fight the case before.
Whatever happens and whatever transactions take place in future, we certainly


want the specific assurance that the parents of the pupils concerned will be consulted.

9.48 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I want, first, to associate myself with the case which has been made by my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy). It seems to me to be of the greatest importance in this matter of the education of children that there should be the closest consultation and co-operation if any change is to be made in a child's school. I hope that the case which has been made by my hon. Friends will be fully taken into account by the Secretary of State.
Regulation 1 deals with the provisions of premises for an additional college of education. It outlines the steps that will be taken if the Scottish Council has any proposal to make about an additional college. When I turn to Regulation 45 of the principal Regulations to which Regulation 1 refers us, I find that it deals with a fairly minor matter.
Regulation 45, "Contributions to other bodies", saids:
The Scottish Council may contribute to the funds of any body providing services which in the opinion of the Council supplement the work of a college of education or are otherwise of value to persons undergoing courses at such colleges.
Then we are to have tagged on to that fairly minor Regulation this extremely important Regulation with which we are dealing tonight, a Regulation which will affect Regulation 45. We find in the beginning of this Regulation 45A:
If in the opinion of the Scottish Council it is at any time necessary for the achievement of the general object set out in paragraph (1) of Regulation 1 that an additional college of education should be provided, they may make a specific proposal to the Secretary of State …
I think that is of the greatest importance.
When we turn back to that first paragraph of the first Regulation of the principal Regulations, what do we find there? This is the object under the heading, "Incorporation of training authorities":
With the general object of ensuring that teachers are adequately prepared for service in the educational establishments of Scotland …

That is the general object of the whole of the principal Regulations, and according to Regulation 45A that is the general object of these new additional ones. I want to emphasise that it is that
teachers are adequately prepared for service in the educational establishments of Scotland".
These Regulations which we are discussing tonight came into operation on 25th October of this year.
Yesterday I had a Question which I hoped would be answered orally; however, because we did not reach it, I got a Written Answer. In that Question asked the Secretary of State:
What will be the range of students in the proposed new College of Education.",
because, just as my hon. Friends assert, I thought this was an afterthought to carry something out. It seems to me that, if the Government seriously considered these matters, they might have thought that at some time in the future, and the not too distant future, an extra college of education would be required, but they do not seem to have thought that at all when they presented the principal Regulations, and the new Regulations which we are discussing tonight give us the principles which will govern the setting up of a new college of education. In reply to that Question the Joint Under-Secretary of State had this to say:
No decision has yet been taken, but my right hon. Friend has just received a recommendation from the Scottish Council for the Training of Teachers that the new College should train up to 900 women, all taking the three-or-four-year diploma courses for teachers of general subjects, with the possibility of developing courses later in certain practical subjects."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1960; Vol. 630, c. 20.]
Here in this new Regulation 45A we are told:
The Secretary of State may approve in principle the proposal with or without modification or may withhold his approval.
I ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State, will it be the case, when the Secretary of State is considering any proposal which comes from the Scottish Council, that he will have very much in mind the object outlined do the first paragraph of the principal Regulations? That is of the greatest importance, because the object is to have adequately trained teachers for Scottish educational establishments. If that is the case, then the


Secretary of State will turn down completely this first proposal which has come from a Scottish Council for the fifth training college.
I want to give the reasons for it. I would not have considered that one of these 900 teachers in the first three or four years or any of the others who may follow would match up to what is laid down in that first paragraph of the principal Regulations. We have been told—the Joint Under-Secretary of State will correct me if the information is wrong—that it has already been decided that this college will be situated in Hamilton.
The Joint Under-Secretary appears to be nodding his head, so that must be the case. It is to be placed in the centre of the biggest industrial county in Scotland and next door to the City of Glasgow. What shall we find that this college will turn out to be? It will be nothing but a glorified post-secondary school. Almost everyone who is interested in education in Scotland is completely opposed to a non-graduate college or a college that deals only with non-graduate women.
Who in the main will be attracted to this college? They will be girls of 17, the great majority of them having been in Lanarkshire from the time of their entrance into the infants' department at the age of five until their leaving senior secondary school at 17. They will go from their school in Lanarkshire to their college in Lanarkshire and they will have had no experience of anything outside their county or the areas from which they come. The Secretary of State for Scotland will have the greatest difficulty in attracting to such a college staff of the calibre that we must have if we are to train teachers adequately for our schools. We in Scotland are proud of the calibre of our staffs in the colleges of education.
In the four colleges of education there are non-graduate women, graduate women and graduate men. There are ordinary graduates and honours graduates. They are a group of people who attract a very good type of staff to deal with the training of teachers in Scotland, but we shall not have that type of staff under this proposal.
There is the further point that many of these students who have not been outside Lanarkshire for a single hour

of their education will go into Lanarkshire schools when they leave to teach Lanarkshire children. What a background for teachers. We want teachers with a great width of vision and teachers who in their training colleges rub shoulders with people from the widest possible area. We want non-graduate women in our colleges to be trained as teachers with graduate women and graduate men. In other words, we want to import into the training colleges the intellectual stimulus that the students who have taken a degree at a university will bring.
If this proposal from the Scottish Council is accepted by the Secretary of State for Scotland we shall be greatly damaging Scottish education. There is talk of a fifth university and talk of this new college in Hamilton. I represent a Lanarkshire constituency and I would be very delighted to have in Lanarkshire a college of education like Jordanhill in Glasgow or Moray House in Edinburgh, but that it not what we are to have.
If what we are to get is what has been proposed, then as a Lanarkshire Member I should be willing for the Secretary of State to take into account the siting of a fifth university, if it is needed, with this training college, which is quite definitely needed. The Minister of Education in his speech on the 7th November time and again gave assurance to the English and Welsh Members that the new training colleges in England and Wales would, wherever possible, be beside universities. He gave that assurance for the very reasons that I have tried to adduce tonight.
Instead of going forward in educational matters in Scotland, under this Tory Government since 1951 almost every step that has been taken in the training and the provision of teachers has been a retrograde one.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have great difficulty in relating that to the Prayer. I have been following the hon. Lady with the greatest care but she has gone a bit wide in her remarks.

Miss Herbison: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. It may be that I have gone a bit wide, but if you look at the Regulation to be added to Regulation 45 as Regulation 45A, you will see that it says quite specifically that this provision


is to meet what is laid down in Regulation 1 of the chief Regulations.

Mr. Speaker: With respect, it does not. It says that
If in the opinion of the Scottish Council it is … the Secretary of State may …
I am not much assisted otherwise. The form of the proposition is:
If in the opinion of the Scottish Council it is …

Miss Herbison: It says:
If in the opinion of the Scottish Council it is … necessary for the achievement of the general object …
Even though we are only discussing these arrangements tonight, the Scottish Council has already decided that it is necessary, so this is no longer a matter of opinion. The Scottish Council has already signified to the Secretary of State that another college of education is necessary, and that knowledge, the agreement of the Secretary of State, and the answer I got yesterday show that there is no longer a matter of opinion in this tonight but, instead, a certainty that the Scottish Council has proposed it.
I shall not, however, continue further with that, Mr. Speaker. I think that I have made my point sufficiently clear in showing the opposition not only of this side of the House but of everyone who is interested in this matter.
The Secretary of State still has the right and the duty to give consideration to these proposals, and before he does so I hope that he will have a word with the Minister of Education, and perhaps this time copy from him something that might be worth while—because the Minister of Education is, in the main, copying what has obtained in Scotland for a very long time.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has said about the siting of this new college. Already in the midlands of Scotland, in Falkirk and the surrounding area, they have begun a great campaign to raise money for the establishment of Scotland's fifth university in the vicinity. I hope that this university will be established somewhere in the midlands of Scotland.
It is vital that the college of education should be associated with that university.

It would be tragic to have these two developments taking place in different areas when they could so easily be associated. I also endorse my hon. Friend's view that education is something more than the mere training of people in school books. Many of the greatest people in universities agree that it is tragic when a person becomes a lecturer, either in a college or university, without having had any other experience, but coming straight through school to his position.
These colleges and universities must be associated with the life of the people. I agree that Hamilton is a little too close to Glasgow and that this college should be situated somewhere where there is room to breathe.

Miss Herbison: I was not really dealing with the issue of the siting so much as with the importance of our getting a fifth university, and I do not care where it is, provided that it is in the place where it is most needed, and the training college should be with it.

Mr. Woodburn: I quite agree. The main point of the discussion is that the two things should be developed simultaneously and in association with each other. Whether they go to Hamilton, Stirlingshire or wherever they go, the two things should be developed as one project.
There is a danger about this. There is sometimes a certain amount of conflict between the training college and the university. I hope that this problem will be resolved in the case of any new college of education and that there will be no such friction to prevent the development. According to the contribution of the new college of education, the university is to be associated with it, and I hope that they will be associated in the happiest possible way. If the new university is developed, I think consideration should be given to whether overlapping could not be avoided by the greatest merging and utilisation of the staffs with a view to a certain amount of economy, on the one hand, and the maximum of integration, on the other.
I support the plea made by my hon. Friend, and I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will give us an assurance.

10.7 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): I understood that the main points to be raised in the discussion by the mover of the Motion, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), and his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), arose out of the fourth of the Regulations, and I will deal with that in a moment or two.
Before coming to that, perhaps I might answer the slightly broader point raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). The object of the main Regulations, I can assure the hon. Lady, will be fully observed by the Secretary of State in considering proposals which may come to him, with the general object of ensuring that teachers are adequately prepared for service in the educational establishments of Scotland.
That, as the hon. Lady said, is the primary aim of the initial Regulation, and that remains the object of the operation throughout. There may be differences of interpretation in this, and differences in emphasis on the new recommendation to which——

Miss Herbison: A different emphasis?

Mr. Brooman-White: Perhaps the hon. Lady will let me continue for a moment.
The Scottish Council for the Training of Teachers would be very upset to think that the hon. Lady regarded it as a sort of annex to the Tory Party when the Tory Party holds one view and the hon Lady holds another. She knows the background to this, that the increased recruitment of teachers is causing a great strain on accommodation. All the existing colleges of education have building work in hand; they have actually started the work or have it in an advance stage of preparation.
It has become clear that an additional college is needed. The decision has been taken that this college should be sited at Hamilton. I understand that the primary reason was the urgent need to ease the strain at Jordanhill. The decision about siting has been taken, but the decision about size and composition—the hon. Lady's point—is still under consideration, and it would be wrong for me to

prejudge the decision now. All I can say is that the views which have been expressed from all sides will be known to my right hon. Friend and will be very carefully considered when the final decision is taken in the light of the aim to get the best possible training for teachers at this time of urgency and pressure.

Miss Herbison: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again. I meant to welcome him to his new position. I appreciate that he has not a very easy task tonight. However, twice he has spoken about the great urgency at this time of shortage of teachers. My information is that no one who has had the qualifications has so far failed to find a place in a training college in Scotland. If that is the case, then the greatest consideration should be given to the need for having a really integrated form of education in what is going to be the new college.

Mr. Brooman-White: Yes, I understand that the overcrowding and strain on accommodation is imposing a very severe handicap at the moment. That is what I meant when I referred to the urgency.
To go on to the main basis of these new Regulations, the training authority which was set up by the Regulations made in 1958 was not empowered to provide or even to plan a new college, and the main purpose of the Regulations under discussion tonight is to enable the central Scottish Council for the Training of Teachers to do just this. The Council, through its special building committee, will build the new college and look after it until it gets its own governing body.
We have also taken the opportunity to make a number of detailed amendments which experience has shown to be desirable, but I do not think that I need detain the House with them tonight. I will go on to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. Regulation No. 4 is rather more than a minor amendment, and I should like to explain why it was included in the amending Regulations and what its effect is. Before doing so, however, I must make it perfectly clear that although events in one particular college—Moray House—brought out the need for the amendment, the amendment is in perfectly general terms. It applies to


all Colleges of Education, and is not specifically aimed at Moray House, though Moray House showed the need for it.
As hon. Members know, the way this matter arose was that towards the end of last year, the governing body of Moray House College of Education examined the accommodation which it had available to meet the needs of the rapidly increasing numbers of students. It came to the conclusion that in order to make room for the students until the programme of college expansion provided more space, it would have to close the secondary department of the demonstration school attached to the college, and to use the rooms which would thus be freed to give instructions to students from the college in training. A demonstration school is a school provided by and run in close conjunction with a training college, and its primary purposes are to serve that college by providing classes where students in training can have practice under supervision and that sort of thing. It is, therefore, not primarily a part of the general school system, which it is the duty of the education authority and not of the college authorities to provide.
The Governors of Moray House College, faced with a shortage of accommodation for their students, sought the approval of the Secretary of State to run down for a three-year period and finally to close the secondary department of their demonstration school. They needed the space, for the reasons I have given, and they also considered that the secondary department, because of its small size and the limited number of courses which it offered, was no longer fulfilling its function as a demonstration school.
This was put to my right hon. Friend, and he took advice on the legal position. He was advised that the words of Regulation 33 of the main Training Authorities Regulations of 1958 meant, in effect, that no governing body of a college of education had the power to make such a major change in the composition of a demonstration school and had no power to close a school, should they wish to do so. My right hon. Friend, therefore, could neither approve nor disapprove the proposal of the Moray House governors, since they

had no power to do what they proposed and he had no power to approve it.
This was an unexpected and, it was felt, an unduly restrictive effect of the wording in the main Regulations. It had never been intended that if a governing body wanted, for good and sufficient reasons, to alter or to close a demonstration school it would not be able to do so. Indeed, it seems clearly right that it should have the same powers in relation to demonstration schools as education authorities have in relation to the schools under their own administration; that it should not be bound to preserve these schools in perpetuity in precisely their present form.
Regulation No. 4 is intended simply to remove this unintended restriction and to give governing bodies the same powers as education authorities. If they wish to make certain changes in the organisation of their demonstration schools, it will now be possible for them to do so, but only with the approval of the Secretary of State. I am sure that the House will agree that they should not be denied that general power.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Member mentioned the necessity for the approval of the Secretary of State. Will he say something about consulting parents?

Mr. Brooman-White: Yes, but I first wanted to make the general point that these schools should not be in a different position and that the governing bodies should have normal powers.
I do not want to say anything about the merits of any proposals which the governors of Moray House College may now make. Their previous proposals were ultra vires. When the first proposals were made, and although it became apparent when we started to go into it that the Secretary of State would not have power to make a recommendation, my right hon. Friend nevertheless had a senior member of the Department get in touch with parents and ascertain their views.
I can give the hon. Member the assurance—and I hope that it will satisfy him and parents—that if the House rejects the Motion, as I believe it should, my right hon. Friend will give most careful consideration to the arguments which have been put to him, both for and against the proposed action at Moray House College. The amendment


of the Regulations simply enables him to consider this or any similar question on its merits and not on a legal technicality, and I hope that in the light of that the Regulations will meet with the approval of the House.

Mr. Willis: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the Secretary of State is likely to consider this matter again, so that parents may have some idea of what the position is?

Mr. Brooman-White: Technically, there are no proposals before the Secretary of State at the moment.

Mr. Willis: Come clean!

Mr. Brooman-White: If the governors put forward new proposals on the lines

of the previous proposals, I have given the assurance that the views of parents will be most carefully considered when the Secretary of State makes his final decision.

Mr. Hoy: I asked the hon. Gentleman whether the governors of the school had made any proposals about the future of the department and whether they had already approached the Secretary of State.

Mr. Brooman-White: So far as I am aware, since the new Regulations were made, no new proposals have been brought forward. I will let the hon. Member know if I am in error about that, but I think that that is the position.

Question put and negatived.

Orders of the Day — ROAD VEHICLES (LIMITOMETER)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Charles Grey: I make no apology for bringing before the House the question of the limitometer, but before doing so I have a serious complaint to make about the refusal of the Minister of Transport to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater) and myself to discuss this project. I warned the Ministry this morning that I intended to make this complaint tonight and it is a matter of regret that the right hon. Gentleman himself has not put in an appearance.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will convey the sentiments of my hon. Friend and myself about that refusal. It is a great pity that the Minister did not prove more reasonable and approachable, for he must have known that we would use this opportunity to express our views and to condemn his action, for no Member of Parliament can take kindly to any Minister's refusal to meet him to discuss various issues.
I have been a Member of Parliament for fifteen years and this is the first time that I have had a refusal from a Minister of either a Labour Government or of successive Tory Governments. My hon. Friend can vouch for that, and no doubt he will testify that this is also the first occasion on which he has been refused.
It is said that there has to be a first time for everything, and perhaps I should not, therefore, be surprised at this inevitability, but I am deeply shocked that a Minister of the Crown could be so discourteous. I fear that if this incident is allowed to pass unnoticed there is no telling where it might lead, or, indeed, what might happen. I wish, therefore, to protest most vigorously, and to make it quite clear that my hon. Friend and I consider that we are entitled to better treatment.
It is a matter of regret that I have had to say this, but I felt it right and proper to do so, so that we might preserve our rights and prevent the Minister of Transport, or any other Minister,

from doing the same thing again. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will convey those views to his right hon. Friend.
I will try, briefly, to explain what the limitometer is, and what it is intended to do. It is a simple device which can be fitted to the outside of a car to show the vehicle's speed. It is, in fact, an external speed indicator in the form of a disc about 6 inches in diameter. It is made of two colours, for example, black and white, and can be seen at a distance of 100 yards.
I have here the device, which will perhaps enable the House to understand what it is, and how it works. It is half black and half white. When the car is stationary, the black part of the disc is at the bottom, and the white part is at the top. As the car moves off and gains speed the black portion moves up towards the left, and as the car reaches speeds over 30 miles per hour so the black part moves towards the top. When the car reaches 90 miles per hour the black part is at the top and the white part is at the bottom. I hope that the House has understood that.
Anyone will be able to tell the speed of a car at a glance. It does not need much imagination to realise what an advantage that will be. I do not think that anyone in his right senses would deny that this is a good thing. Many people are of the opinion that it would be an advantage. I am sure that the Minister will think so, too, and I am almost certain that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with him.
Judging from a letter that was sent to Mr. Sculley, on 13th October, the Minister seems to have the wrong impression. He seems to have the impression that this speed indicator is for the benefit of road users. I get that from the fourth paragraph of the letter which says:
It is also considered that the addition of any further signals to those already permitted on motor vehicles would prove distracting to other drivers and we would be reluctant to add to that number.
That proves that he thinks that the gadget is for the benefit of road users. Nothing is further from the truth.
I can think of many things on cars which distract a driver. For instance, a


wireless set could be distracting to a degree. I am not advocating the removal of wirelesses, and I am sure that the Minister would not, either. If I were to advocate such action the Minister would object on many grounds, one being that a source of revenue would be lost. However, this is beside the point.
The question of distraction does not come into the case. The limitometer is not meant for the road users. Its purpose is to act as a deterrent to those driving in restricted areas. The very fact that a driver knew that he was advertising his speed would be sufficient for him to make sure that he was travelling at no more than 30 miles an hour in a built-up area. That, alone, is a good reason why this thing should be considered.
A second reason is that pedestrians could tell the speed of the vehicle almost at a glance and, in certain circumstances, could take the action necessary to prevent an accident. The prevention of accidents is, indeed, the main purpose of the limitometer, and is one very solid argument for looking into the idea.
The Minister's argument is that the limitometer could be tampered with. Nobody would deny that. As long as there are human beings there will always be those who want to do wrong, but, even assuming that they numbered thousands, the limitometer could be sealed in much the same way as the main fuse in an electric meter is sealed. Those sealed main fuses are in practically all premises—how many people interfere with them?
The Minister also says that as long ago as 1935 some such thing was considered by the Transport Advisory Council, which recommended against compulsory fittings of this kind to vehicles. I believe that a little later the Departmental Committee on Road Safety came to the same conclusion. That may be the case, but that was a long time ago, and that decision was reached at a time when, comparatively speaking, there was practically no traffic on the road—and certainly less slaughter. Road safety is vital, and no stone should be left unturned in making our roads safe for vehicle users and pedestrians alike. Every day, about 20 people are killed on the roads, and the fact that a third of them

are pedestrians proves that the big accidents occur in restricted areas.
I believe that if motorists had the limitometer fitted to their cars they would think twice before speeding in built-up areas, and no one can doubt how much safer life would be for pedestrians. This invention may not be the complete answer, but it is an attack on the problem and could make a contribution to road safety. I beg the Minister not to turn this idea down flat, or to turn a deaf ear to what we say. I only ask him to send one of his experts to interview Mrs. Wilkinson and Mr. Sculley and see the thing work. If the Minister will do that, he has everything to gain; if he does not, he has everything to lose.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) has succeeded in bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I support his criticism of the attitude of the Minister of Transport to Members of Parliament. I have never before experienced such treatment. Whenever we asked to meet the previous Minister of Transport about constituency problems we were always received, but when we apply to the present Minister to meet him, as Members of Parliament, on an issue that has been brought to our notice by our constituents, he gives a blank refusal. Surely it is not too much to ask that an official from the Ministry should meet my constituent, Mr. Sculley, and his partner and look at this limitometer, instead of giving it the cold "brush-off". These men have been told by the Ministry that a similar type of project has been brought to the notice of the Department before and, therefore, it is known to be of no use without any examination.
I believe that it is important to emphasise that Ministry of Transport officials have not seen this instrument, but are prepared to sit in judgment on it and pass sentence without having heard the case which could be made out in its favour. That is a fantastic attitude. I understood that the Minister was keen on road safety, but how keen is the right hon. Gentleman, or the Parliamentary Secretary, when they turn down something which might result in a greater measure of safety on the roads? I believe that road safety committees


will take a dim view of their attitude. In one part of my constituency the A.1 trunk road runs through the centre of the village of Chilton Buildings, and fatal accidents have occurred on this stretch of road. I am convinced that the attitude of the Ministry will not be received kindly in that area in view of the publicity which this limitometer has received.
I questioned Mr. Sculley when he came to see me and he was very forth-coming in his answers. He maintained that the invention would act as a deterrent to drivers who drove at an excessive speed in restricted areas. Pedestrians would know immediately by means of the instrument how fast a vehicle was travelling. It was emphasised that the record of the instrument would be of no use unless there was more than one witness. The limitometer has created great interest in other countries and it would be a slap in the face for this country if it were produced in another country because the Minister of Transport was not interested.
So enthusiastic are those who believe in the limitometer about road safety, so much do they believe that they have the answer to the problem of reducing the number of accidents, that, if the Minister of Transport is not interested in this patent at all, they will be forced to go elsewhere. If another country tests it and accepts the idea, and if it proves to do what the owners have said it will do, what will be the reaction in this country as the accident figures continue to mount? My hon. Friend has cited the figures. What will the reaction be as they mount as more vehicles are brought on to the roads?
In his letter to the Minister, Mr. Sculley says that Durham County police are interested in and like the idea. We have a very efficient road safety section attached to the Durham County constabulary, and it is doing a very good job. If it is interested in and likes the idea, is not that another reason that the Minister should grant these people an interview to demonstrate it, if not to him, at least to a responsible member of his Department, who in turn could report to the Minister on his findings?
We talk a great deal in the House about inventiveness and initiative. I conclude by pleading with the Parliamentary Secretary to ask his right hon. Friend

not to turn this application down, but to give further consideration to the request that these people should be received by someone from his Department.

10.37 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I am sure that the House wants me, at the outset of my remarks, to deal with the very grave charge, which has been made by both the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) and the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater), of discourtesy by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport for, as they put it, refusing point black to receive either or both of them to discuss this device.
With respect to both of them, I think they may have misunderstood the terms of my right hon. Friend's reply to them. My right hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Member for Durham on 2nd November a long letter, of which I have a copy, setting out in summary form the main reasons why he did not think that this would be a useful device to use on our roads. His letter concluded with this paragraph:
I am most reluctant to appear unresponsive to ideas on road safety, but I really think that there would be little point in coming to see me.
My right hon. Friend did not say, "I am not prepared to see you". That would have been most discourteous. The House knows my right hon. Friend and knows that he is not noted for discourtesy in the House—indeed, the contrary. If he felt for a moment that the two hon. Members considered that they had been wrongfully treated in this matter, he would be only too anxious to put it right, but I suggest to the two hon. Members that they have misunderstood what my right hon. Friend said in his letter. He said that those were the reasons why we are not very keen on this device and that, in those circumstances, there seemed to be little point in the hon. Members seeing him. But he has not turned them down point blank, and it is not a definite refusal. The words are not capable of that interpretation.

Mr. Grey: Mr. Grey rose——

Mr. Hay: Time is short and I must come to the main issues raised here.
No Minister of Transport and no Ministry of Transport wishes deliberately


to turn down any reasonable idea or device which will contribute to road safety. We are not unimaginative or hidebound or restrictive in our view. On the contrary, we are always seeking new ways of improving road safety. But it must be remembered that the officials of my right hon. Friend's Department have some experience in these matters, extending over many years, and people ought not to complain too bitterly if, on objective examination, and remembering that we have a vested interest in finding something helpful to our efforts to alleviate the dangers on the roads, we sometimes are bound to take an adverse view on a new device or idea which its promoter quite genuinely considers would help.
We want to succeed in our road safety matters and we will willingly examine any promising new ideas, however novel, which we think may help. But the device being discussed tonight is not a new idea, and this is the first major point that I want to make. It is an idea that has been put forward on a great many occasions in the past.
It is true, as the hon. Member for Durham said, that as long ago as 1939 the Transport Advisory Council considered a number of devices of this kind which had previous to that year been put up. In 1947, again, the Committee on Road Safety examined the problem once more. Basically, what is suggested—

Mr. Grey: Let us get the record right. The letter refers to 1935 and the hon. Gentleman is making a reference to 1939.

Mr. Hay: I do not think that there is a great deal in it. It was certainly prewar. Perhaps I have the date wrong—I think not—but it is comparatively immaterial.
Basically, this is a form of external speedometer and the object has always been to show other motorists and pedestrians the speed of a vehicle. Many devices in the past have been put forward with that basic idea, to give some kind of visual or audible indication of the speed of a vehicle. The indicator is usually proposed to be put on the roof, on the radiator, on the screen, or on the bumpers of the car. Sometimes the device involves the use of coloured lights for different speeds or of a signal light which goes on and off as certain speeds are reached, and usually there is a proposal

that whistles, bells, buzzers or hooters should be associated with the device.
I mention this not to mock, but simply to show that we have had all these ideas and modifications and variations put to us on many occasions over the years. This is why, perhaps, when this was put to us recently we were bound to say that it was comparatively little different from many of the others which we have examined exhaustively in the past.
I do not want to labour the point, but I want to explain the reason why we had to reject this idea. What we are asked to do, of course, is to make it a compulsory fitting to all motor vehicles. There are several fundamental objections of principle which I would like very shortly to state.
The purpose of the device is twofold. First, it is said that many accidents are caused by the misjudgment of speeds of vehicles and that this could be prevented if there were some external indication on the vehicles of the speed at which they were travelling. Then, again, it is said that such a device might help the police in the enforcement of the speed limit, and both these points are quite genuinely put forward by those who want to see the device used.
It has always been a very basic principle of road safety in this country that each individual using the roads has a personal responsibility for road safety. We have never encouraged people to rely on any mechanical device rather than on their own judgment. For road users to rely on an external speedometer to tell them the speed of an approaching vehicle is open to a number of obvious dangers.
I will mention three of them. First, through giving too much attention to the disc on any vehicle a pedestrian or motorist might fail to take into account other factors, for instance another vehicle about to overtake the one being observed. Secondly, a mechanical fault which caused the device to register a wrong reading might cause a serious accident. A very high degree of accuracy and reliability would be necessary. Thirdly, there could be an accidental misreading of the speed. This could happen quite easily in fast traffic, especially when the disc was seen from an angle, or only momentarily.
It is said that this device is 6 inches in diameter and can be seen at 100 yards distance. At a speed of 30 miles an hour a vehicle travels 100 yards in seven seconds, and if there are two vehicles approaching each other at 30 miles an hour that time is considerably reduced, and there is not much time to observe the speed at which the approaching vehicle is travelling.
What matters in making quick decisions in traffic is not so much the absolute speed of other vehicles as their speed relative to each other and to other factors involved—such as the distance away of the vehicle observed, the width of the road, the visibility, and the behaviour of other road users. The need to relate the reading on a speed indicator—or possibly several, because there may be a number of vehicles involved—to these other factors could even have the effect of slowing down or confusing many of the essentially split second decisions that every motorist has to take.
This would be particularly true if it could not be read instantaneously—perhaps because of poor visibility, or the angle at which it was seen, or the state of the indicator itself. I understand that it is to be situated low down on the bumper of vehicles. It could easily there be obscured by dirt, mud, or grease.
We think that vehicles already carry about as much as is tolerable in the form of lights, indicators and signs. The road user has to exercise a very great deal of concentration and we do not particularly want to add to the numerous things that he has to look out for when driving. He has to look out for brake lights, direction indicators, traffic lights, hand signals, traffic signs, and many other things. The fewer things he has to look out for, the easier is his task of driving.
My right hon. Friend's letter made it very clear that the second possibility of

using the device as an aid to enforcement of the speed limit would not be particularly effective. It could easily be tampered with. I felt that the optimism of the hon. Member for Sedgefield was a little marked in this connection. It would be quite possible for an ill-disposed person to tamper with it to make it under-read the speed, and it would then be quite useless for police enforcement purposes.
I hope that I have said enough to show that there are a number of difficulties of principle involved. There are great objections on these grounds. In these circumstances, my right hon. Friend decided that it was not worth while examining the device in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman, because, incidentally, full details and photographs had already been sent to us.
In the few moments remaining I will say this, however. Since the two hon. Gentlemen feel so strongly about this, I will instruct one of our vehicle certifying officers in the Durham area to meet Mr. Sculley and Mr. Wilkinson and hear what they have to say. I cannot give any undertaking other than that. I will try to make such an arrangement, but I cannot hold out any hope—I must make this clear—that we will be persuaded by what he will find, to set aside these very great issues of principle, which so far have militated against the use of any device of this kind, either in this country or abroad. Despite what the hon. Gentleman said, this has been suggested in a number of other countries. Nobody else has ever tried it, as far as I know.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.